PRIVATE BUSINESS

London Development Agency Bill (By  Order)

Order for Second Reading read.
	To be read a Second time on Tuesday 26 March.

Oral Answers to Questions

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Electoral Fraud

David Stewart: When the new measures to combat electoral fraud in Northern Ireland will come into force.

Des Browne: It is intended that all the measures proposed in the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill will be in force in time for the scheduled Assembly elections on 1 May 2003. This represents a major step forward in tackling electoral abuse.

David Stewart: Does my hon. Friend share my view that the elimination of electoral fraud should be a key priority for the Government? Will he also condemn the abuses perpetrated through the multi-registration and proxy vote procedures? Is he confident that the planned changes, which include the national insurance check for absent voters, will not deter legitimate electors?

Des Browne: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The Bill sends a clear signal to people intent on committing electoral fraud, which is a crime that the Government are determined to combat. I thank him too for his question about national insurance numbers, as it gives me an opportunity to announce for the first time in this House that, from this year's annual canvass, applicants to the Northern Ireland electoral register and for an absent vote will be required to provide a signature, a date of birth and a national insurance number. However, to assist applicants, registration will be facilitated by a canvasser on an individual basis, and it will be preceded by a significant publicity campaign.
	The House should bear in mind also the fact that, until mid-March 2003, anyone who is not on the register on 1 December will still be able to get on to it on a rolling basis. I am satisfied that, in all circumstances, the proper balance has been struck.

Lady Hermon: Given that the electoral office will clearly have enhanced powers to combat electoral fraud, will the Minister give an undertaking that it and other offices, such as the office of the police ombudsman, will come within the remit of the new chief inspector of criminal justice?

Des Browne: I thank the hon. Lady for that question. I cannot give her the assurance that she seeks today, but I can tell her that I am consulting 18 agencies—among them the chief electoral officer and the police ombudsman—with regard to their inclusion in the remit of the criminal justice inspectorate.

Peter Bottomley: Will the Minister confirm that the registration of a person's death will lead to that person's name being crossed off the electoral register at once?

Des Browne: I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance immediately, but I shall write to him on the matter.

Decommissioning

Jim Murphy: If he will make a statement about terrorist weapon decommissioning.

Jane Kennedy: We welcomed the announcement on 23 October 2001 that the Provisional IRA had put a quantity of arms completely beyond use. We now want to see further decommissioning by the IRA, and decommissioning by all other terrorist groups.

Jim Murphy: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. She is aware, as am I, of the long-held belief that people who retain illegal arms do so to protect their place in the illegal drugs trade in Northern Ireland. That belief is strengthened by the activities of IRA members in Colombia in support of FARC, the terrorist and drug trafficking organisation. She will know that the issue has been raised in Congress very recently by US State Department officials. As part of the process of urging the decommissioning of illegal arms, will my hon. Friend ensure that pressure is also brought to bear on republican and loyalist terrorist to end their ownership of arms and their part in the illegal trade in drugs?

Jane Kennedy: I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured to learn that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discussed that very matter with the American Government when he visited the US last week. There has been a credible start to decommissioning, but last October's event needs to become a process without further delay. We also want decommissioning to be undertaken by loyalists and by dissident groups that remain outside the peace process. Loyalist and republican paramilitaries both must realise that the Belfast agreement is the only way forward.

Michael Mates: Have there been any further acts of decommissioning since that first event?

Jane Kennedy: We have received no information from the decommissioning commission that any further event has taken place, but the old arguments for holding on to illegal arms are obsolete. We have lived up to our commitments, as set out in the Belfast agreement and at Weston Park. It is time for all paramilitary organisations to honour their commitments to decommission.

Eddie McGrady: Does the Minister agree that the total decommissioning of paramilitary and terrorist weaponry and the disestablishment of paramilitary and terrorist structures are prerequisites to creating an environment in which our new institutions can thrive and prosper? Does she share my concern at the murder in my constituency a few days ago of Matthew Burns, for which local media reports claim that the Provisional IRA was responsible? Given that organisation's alleged truce, what action does she propose to take, and what inquiries will she make?

Jane Kennedy: I endorse everything that the hon. Gentleman says. There is a need for society to move away from violence and the culture of violence. The ceasefires that we have in Northern Ireland are not perfect, but neither is democracy in Northern Ireland. I condemn unreservedly the cold-blooded murder of Matthew Burns in Castlewellan on 21 February, but the investigation of the incident is continuing and it would not be appropriate for me to comment until it is complete. Obviously, my colleagues and I wish to join those who have expressed sympathy, because we have yet another bereaved family in Northern Ireland.

Nigel Dodds: Can the Minister recall the promises made at the time of the referendum in Northern Ireland, linking the ending of all terrorist violence and the decommissioning of all terrorist weaponry with concessions, such as IRA-Sinn Fein in government and the early release of terrorist prisoners? Does the Minister accept that, in Northern Ireland, people regard with horror the notion that the Government are considering an amnesty for terrorists on the run in the absence of any further decommissioning? Will she give an assurance to the House that no such amnesty will be forthcoming?

Jane Kennedy: I note the hon. Gentleman's position and he has expressed his concerns before. He may wish to listen to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will give to the next question. The decommissioning that took place in October last year was a significant event and a real shift in the republican mindset. But that event needs to become a process, which needs to be extended to other paramilitary organisations that continue to cling to their illegal weapons.

Helen Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that where there are groups in Northern Ireland—both loyalist and republican—that have failed to decommission their weapons, that helps to breed fear and mistrust at the grass roots of the organisations, particularly in urban areas, which find it more difficult to allow the democratic process that we have set in motion through the Good Friday agreement to take root and flourish?

Jane Kennedy: I absolutely agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. It is not within the Government's power to promise a successful end to decommissioning, or to any other aspect of the Belfast agreement. However, we have come a long way. Much has been achieved, and our work will continue.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The Minister will be aware of the growing disappointment in Northern Ireland, as we approach the fourth anniversary of the agreement, that we have not had further progress on decommissioning. What steps are the Government going to take to apply pressure on loyalist and republican paramilitary organisations to complete the decommissioning process? Is she aware that if the Government do not act, we will?

Jane Kennedy: I hear what the hon. Gentleman has said. He will know that we continue to work tirelessly towards achieving all the objectives set out in the agreement. That is our intention and our work is focused on that.

Quentin Davies: I wholeheartedly agree with the Minister that the Belfast agreement is the best basis for moving forward, and we all want complete decommissioning by both sides. However, after four years of unilateral and unlinked concessions in one direction, will the Government finally learn, after releasing all the prisoners without demanding any decommissioning at all and after crafting a special status for Sinn Fein-IRA MPs in this House and giving them the red carpet treatment in Downing Street, that making such concessions is not the right way forward, that appeasement does not lead to peace, and that there is a difference between the two?

Jane Kennedy: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. All aspects of the Belfast agreement must be implemented in full. None is conditional upon another. Everybody who has signed and is committed to that agreement needs to carry out their responsibilities under the agreement. Those paramilitary organisations that continue to cling to their illegal weapons need to learn that the only way forward is the true implementation of the agreement and the abandonment of weapons for good.

Quentin Davies: Does the hon. Lady realise that the fundamental lack of linkage is at the root of the problem of the Government's tactics and the reason why we have not made more progress? Does she accept that if her Government go forward with an unconditional amnesty for terrorists on the run, not only will there be revulsion, as the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) said, throughout both law-abiding communities in Northern Ireland, but the Government will reinforce the sense in Sinn Fein-IRA that they can get all the concessions they want while sitting on their hands and on their arms?

Jane Kennedy: We have seen massive advances in Northern Ireland, albeit often painful and even acrimonious at the time. In any context, that progress has been extraordinary. Enormous programmes of reform have been achieved—the Assembly, policing, criminal justice reforms and human rights—but the situation is not perfect. Hard decisions have still to come. We recognise the pain that victims and relatives feel, but as in many areas, we need to draw a line under the past and turn towards construction. Let no one belittle the significance of last autumn's decommissioning act. It was historic. It was a clear symbol of a major shift in attitudes towards constitutionalism, and the process must continue on all sides. Loyalists, too, need to play their part in bringing about a better future.

Terrorists

Andrew Turner: If he will make a statement on his policy towards terrorists who have (a) escaped and (b) not been apprehended.

Martin Smyth: What plans has he to introduce legislation regarding suspected terrorists who are on the run.

John Reid: We recognised at Weston Park that the issue of those on the run needed to be dealt with. We will deal with it. However, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, how we deal with it is open to discussion.

Andrew Turner: That was a very equivocal response to a very important question. At a time when the Government are spending £100 million on the Saville inquiry into Bloody Sunday, will not the relatives of the 11 innocent victims of that other bloody Sunday, Enniskillen, remembrance day 1987, be appalled to hear that the Government are even contemplating an amnesty for terrorists such as Charlie Caufield? Cannot the Government get their act together and send a straight message to the terrorists that there will be no amnesty for those on the run or those who have escaped?

John Reid: Of course, the thoughts of all hon. Members are with the victims of all the troubles. We have made more progress in the past four years resolving the difficulties than we ever did in the previous 40 years. That is partly because we have recognised the amount of pain and the fact that pain is indivisible. The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of those on the run. It is a difficult question, and for many a distasteful one. I have no illusions about that.

Eric Forth: It is not difficult.

John Reid: The right hon. Gentleman says it is not, but I understand just how difficult it is. I also understand that it is distasteful for many people. Many of the things that we have had to countenance in the peace process, such as the release of prisoners, have been both difficult and distasteful. I would not want in any way to diminish that consideration. However, we have managed to achieve such success in the peace process because we have been courageous enough to face up to issues that are difficult and distasteful. I urge the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) to look at the wider context and consider the benefits that the peace process has brought, and to look elsewhere, not least the middle east, to see what happens when political processes fall.

Martin Smyth: One may have sympathy with the Secretary of State's position, but will he acknowledge that last year some 700 people in Northern Ireland did not enjoy their human rights, as they were expelled from their homes, and 39 of them were expelled from Northern Ireland as well? While the political spokesmen keep talking about community justice, is it not near time we said clearly that there will be no further advance until we see advances in realism from those who are leaders of terror?

John Reid: It is not often that I can say that I unambiguously and unequivocally agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman says, but I can on this occasion. There is absolutely no justification for kangaroo courts, punishment beatings, exiles and people taking the law into their own hands, particularly when there is now a police service in Northern Ireland that I think is due the support and participation of all members in all communities. I say, again without equivocation, that it is time for reconciliation in Northern Ireland. It is time for people to put a bitter, bitter past behind them, and resolving the issue of exiles is another important part of that process. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will keep up pressure on those responsible to end the despicable expulsion of people in Northern Ireland from their homes and their homeland.

Harry Barnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is more concern in Protestant and Catholic working-class communities about the possibility of on-the-runs being given an amnesty than on any other issue in Northern Ireland politics, including decommissioning? How would he answer those who say that it is one thing to bring about the early release of prisoners but quite another to excuse people, so that there is no black mark against them and no action is taken. That is what bothers many working-class people in Northern Ireland.

John Reid: Yes, I recognise fully the deep concerns that are felt on both sides of the community. I read with interest the recent report from BASE 2 on those who have been exiled. It does not afflict only one community. I think that about 60 per cent. of the huge number who were threatened or had to move from their homes last year were from the loyalist community and about 40 per cent. were from the republican community. There is no justification for that. I say this to those who want to see progress in Northern Ireland: we have been told for decades by people in Northern Ireland and the spokesmen of the various communities that they wish to get away from what they were accused of having—arbitrary justice, kangaroo courts, punishment meted out without due justification. All those issues are exemplified in the case of the exiles. We will do everything possible to make sure that those expulsions cease and that we find a way of reconciliation so that those who are expelled from their homes can return to them.

Tony Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend accept that any resolution of the on-the-run issue must include some process of detainment and release under licence to ensure parity with the early release scheme?

John Reid: As I have told the House previously, we have committed ourselves to resolving this issue but have not decided how it will be resolved. Recent discussions have included issues raised by my hon. Friend and Members on both sides of the House regarding the security forces, exiles, matters of truth and victims. Those factors bear heavily upon us in our consideration of this matter, and that is how it should be. However, I repeat that there have been numerous occasions during this process when we have had to confront the most difficult and sometimes distasteful issues that we would prefer never to have to address. We recognise, however, that those issues are part of the bigger picture of achieving a settlement in Northern Ireland and a future for the generations of Northern Ireland that is better than—and more advanced than—anything that previous generations have managed to live under, and we will confront them.

Gregory Campbell: The Secretary of State has said that to some degree he accepts the resentment and anger in Northern Ireland about the action that Her Majesty's Government are contemplating. Can he outline to the House what pressure Sinn Fein-IRA brought to bear on the Government to make them contemplate on-the-run terrorists being given an amnesty in the face of such opposition, not only in this House, but right across the communities in Northern Ireland?

John Reid: The issue has been raised, not as a result of any particular pressure, but following on from and flowing from the logic of the Belfast agreement. It was an anomaly that we accepted had to be addressed; we are in the process of addressing it. I have told the hon. Gentleman that how we will do so has not been decided. I can say that with complete honesty and sincerity and I hope that he accepts that. The fact that we are spending so much time considering the issue is a sign of its importance and of our understanding of the concerns about it on both sides of the House. When we have reached a conclusion, we will of course come back to the House.

Lembit �pik: First, why was there no cross-party negotiation in Northern Ireland before that initiative was announced? Secondly, while we generally support the Government's Northern Ireland policy, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that if he tries to force the policy through without due consideration for the feelings of victims, friends and families and the application of justice, as they see it, the Liberal Democrats, and I am sure other parties tooperhaps even members of the Labour partywill oppose it in this Chamber and the other?

John Reid: I should explain that this question arose out of discussions that took place at the inception of the Belfast agreement. It is an anomaly that has to be addressed as a logical outflow of some of the agreements reached then, including the difficult and for many people painful agreement on the release of paramilitary prisoners. I am the first to accept the depth of feeling on the issue. I hope that the fact that we have allowed people to know that it is under consideration has been useful. It certainly has been useful from the point of view that people have been less than reticent about making their views known on the subject. Obviously, that cannot but affect how we consider these matters.
	I repeat that problems that have gone on for decadesindeed, in some cases centurieson the island of Ireland cannot be resolved without dealing with some very difficult issues. I urge the hon. Gentleman and everyone else in the House, when they weigh in the balance the question of on-the-runs, to remember the context, which is a far better Northern Ireland as a result of such painful decisions than we have ever had in the history of that Province.

Crispin Blunt: In solving the difficulty that the Secretary of State and the Government have created for themselves, will the right hon. Gentleman guaranteewith a yes or a nothat he will not use the royal prerogative to bypass Parliament?

John Reid: I have told the hon. Gentleman that all these matters are under discussion[Hon. Members: Oh!] If the tragic and painful history of Northern Ireland could be summed up in yes and no answers, we would have solved it decades ago. It cannot be; nor can we reconcile the parties to a conflict that has lasted decades without being prepared to consider issues that are difficult and cause a great deal of pain. I have no problem listening to hon. Gentlemen and Ladies explain to us the difficulties, distaste and pain with which the issue of on-the-runs is addressed within the community in Northern Ireland, but I would tell them this, particularly in regard to the manner in which the issue is often raised by those on the Opposition Front Benches: we have made more progress in four years in Northern Ireland than we ever did in the many decades before that. We have done so because we have had the courage to confront issues that are controversial and painful. We are doing this in a solemn and detailed fashion on the question of on-the-runs

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to call Question 5.

Organised Crime

Caroline Flint: What assistance is being provided by the United States to assist in combating organised crime and gangsterism in Northern Ireland.

John Reid: The US has consistently supported us in our policing efforts, most recently by FBI training. Separately, in a step to assist our fight against organised crime, last Tuesday I appointed a US expert, Professor Ronald Goldstock, to provide an international perspective on the problem. He was the director of the New York organised crime taskforce for 13 years.

Caroline Flint: It is a sad reality that organised crime has fed the troubles, violence and intimidation in Northern Ireland for many years, blighting families and especially children. I welcome the appointment of Professor Goldstock, who is a respected man of high calibre. However, will my right hon. Friend explain in a little more detail how the professor will help the Government to make progress in the fight against organised crime?

John Reid: Ron Goldstock brings a wealth of experience to assist us in our efforts in the fight against organised crime. We are already trying to resource the police in very difficult circumstances, and the organised crime taskforce has made a considerable start under my hon. Friend the Minister of State with responsibilities for security. Ron Goldstock will be charged with analysing the impact of organised crime on society and, particularly, with recommending ways of building cross-community support for the fight against organised crime, especially, although not exclusively, among those who would masquerade as the defenders of either community. I am sure that he will make a major contribution to our efforts.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Michael Spicer: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 20 March.

Tony Blair: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including a meeting with Prime Minister John Howard of Australia to discuss the very welcome suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth.

Michael Spicer: Why are there more strikes when we have a Labour Government?

Tony Blair: That is an ill-judged question. The number of days lost through strikes are fewer under this Government than they were under the previous Conservative Government. I am afraid that that was a foolish question to ask.

Debra Shipley: Will my right hon. Friend join me and the thousands of constituents who have written to their Members of Parliament to back the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children campaign to stop parents or carers killing their children? It is a shock to the House to learn that every week one or two children are killed by their parent or carerthe person who is meant to love and care for them, and keep them safe. Will he undertake to carry out all the necessary measures and legislative changes that are backed by all the children's charities?

Tony Blair: We certainly support those moves. We support entirely the NSPCC's worthwhile Full Stop campaign, which will have the support of the vast majority of hon. Members and parents throughout the country.

Iain Duncan Smith: Since the Prime Minister came to power, more than 50,000 care home beds have closed. Does the Prime Minister think that that has anything to do with his policies?

Tony Blair: No. Incidentally, in relation to that 50,000, the net figure is 19,000 places and the reason for that number is clearmany of those care homes are in private hands and have been sold off. However, as a result of the measures that the Government have introduced and the money that we have put in, some 1.4 billion will be spent on initiatives to help the elderly in care homes and in their own homes in the next few years. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Conservative party opposed that additional 1.4 billion when we announced it in the last Parliament.

Iain Duncan Smith: As usual, the Prime Minister seems to shuffle off blame. Care homes are closing simply because the Government have weighed them down with expensive rules and regulations. For example, why should nursing managers with 20 years' experience have to abandon their patients to take qualifications just to keep their jobs? Why should married couples who have been living together for decades have to split up because the rules say that their home needs more single rooms? On 18 May 2000, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) warned the Government that their policies would result in
	a huge loss of overall capacity in the system.[Official Report, 18 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 494.]
	Is that not exactly what has happened?

Tony Blair: First, the regulations to which the right hon. Gentleman refers are the care standards regulations. I hope that the Conservative party supports high standards for our care homes, and I would have thought that it would do so. Actually, the principal reason why many of these homes have closed is that the owners believe, for understandable reasons, that the level of fees given by the Government are not high enough. We understand that, particularly when they are often sitting on extremely valuable property which they could sell for a great deal of money. However, the only way that we will get the necessary fees paid to those care homes is to put more money into the system. I repeat that the Government have committed 1.4 billion over the next few years both to help care services in local authorities and to give people better chances of being looked after in their own homes. We are putting that money into the system to rectify the problem, and the right hon. Gentleman opposed it. Perhaps when he gets to his feet he will explain how he will manage to improve the situation of people in care homes when he is opposed to the investment in them.

Iain Duncan Smith: What the Prime Minister absolutely fails to point out is that, far from putting money in, the expensive cost of regulations takes money out of the system. The director of the Independent Healthcare Association said:
	The entire NHS plan will go into the sand unless care homes are stabilised.
	The Prime Minister has been destabilising them for five years. As a result, we now have an NHS that is in almost permanent crisis. People cannot get their operations because there are no beds available. There are no beds available because those occupying them cannot get beds in care homes, and those in care homes live in fear of being evicted because their care home may be closed. That is not health care; it is Kafka-care. The reality is that the people who will suffer are the most vulnerable in society.

Tony Blair: First, on the point about operations in the national health service, let us not forget that the vast majority of peoplemore than 70 per cent.get their operations within three months. This year, the Government have increased the number of beds in the national health service for the first time in years. The right hon. Gentleman talks about waiting lists, but let no one forget that, in the years before we came to office, waiting lists in the health service went up by 400,000. They have fallen by 100,000 under this Government.
	In respect of care homes, as a result of the additional money, we are able to look after more people in their own homesthat is what they wantand we are able to increase the level of fees given to those care homes. If the right hon. Gentleman opposes the provisions of the Care Standards Act 2000which allow, for example, some of the people working in those homes to get paid holidays for the first time in their liveslet him get up and say so now.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Jim Sheridan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that today's British workers are among the most productive in Europe? Does he not further agree that it is not over-ambitious for those same workers to expect and enjoy the same rights as those enjoyed by their counterparts throughout Europe?

Tony Blair: That is exactly right. That is why, when the Government came to office, we signed the social chapter and we introduced the minimum wage. We have introduced the first proper rights of trade union representation and we have introduced the right to paid holidays for the first time for literally hundreds of thousands of people who never used to get the chance of a holiday. In those circumstances, I say to my hon. Friend that it is important that we manage to combine both enterprise and fairness in our economy. Each of the measures that we introduced, including the social chapter, were bitterly opposed by the Conservative party.

Charles Kennedy: In expressing continuing support for the further British troop deployment to Afghanistan announced this week, may I ask the Prime Minister to clarify one aspect of that? The British are already involved in peacekeeping and there will be British forces in the mountains in a combat role. Why are we combining both roles when the Americans do not wish to do either?

Tony Blair: There have been British forces engaged in fighting in Afghanistan for a very long time. Those troops, together with those in the international security assistance force, amount to about 6,000 British troops in total who are involved in the Afghan operation. To put that into context, that is about one tenth of the number deployed in the Gulf war.
	It is important to remember that several hundred of the 1,700 troops that we announced earlier this week would be deployed are already in Afghanistan. Many more are near the theatre of operation and, of course, thousands of Americans troops have been there for a very long time, and will remain there. Some of the way in which this has been reported is not in accordance with the facts.

Charles Kennedy: I am sure, however, that the Prime Minister and the House will acknowledge that the Chief of the Defence Staff publicly cautioned against dual roles and against peacekeeping and combat forces being in the same place at the same time. Why has the Prime Minister come to the opposite conclusion?

Tony Blair: I have not. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Chief of the Defence Staff fully supports the deployment of our forces. They are not being deployed in the same areasthe security force is in Kabul and is performing a fundamental role in restoring security to Afghanistan.
	As I have pointed out throughout, there was always going to be a period in which we would have to mop up the last remnants of Taliban and al-Qaeda resistance. There are groups of people in the mountains whom the American forces have already been fighting, and Canadian forces have been fighting alongside the Americans. Indeed, at the moment about eight different countries are fighting in Afghanistan alongside the United States of America. British forces have also been there for a significant period. It is important that we get the job done. I do not believe that there is any mismatch between the security force operating in Kabul and the forces that will, as I said, deal with the last remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. That is a necessary part of prosecuting the war in Afghanistan to a successful conclusion.

James Plaskitt: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the comments of one of his recent predecessors, who declared the European Union unreformable. Does he agree that, although it might seem that way if one stands on the sidelines and carps at it, it appears quite different if one is involved in the process?

Tony Blair: Our membership of the European Union has been wholly to the benefit of this country. It is to the benefit of British jobs and the British economy, and it is right for British influence in the world that we remain part of the European Union. I am only sorry that so many people in the Conservative party today want to take this country back to the margins of influence in Europe, because that is not a patriotic thing to do. It is not in our national self-interest; it is actually a betrayal of that self-interest.

Mark Simmonds: In Skegness, in my constituency, hundreds of jobs and thousands of tourists will be adversely affected by the ill-judged recommendations in the Government- sponsored Budd report on gaming. After four months of delay and dithering, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to disown, and dissociate himself from those proposals?

Tony Blair: We commissioned the independent report for very good reasons. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is studying it and she will make an announcement in due course. Before making up his mind and alarming his constituents unduly, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should await the outcome of the consultation.

Vernon Coaker: My right hon. Friend will know that many people are concerned about levels of crime, particularly street crime. People tell me that they cannot understand why the courts do not deal adequately with persistent offenders. Can he reassure them and the House that the Government are determined to take action to ensure that persistent offenders are dealt with effectively and swiftly by the courts?

Tony Blair: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Of course, overall, crimewhich doubled under the previous Conservative Governmenthas fallen under this Government. However, a serious problem exists with street crime, and one of the things that we are looking at is how to increase the number of secure accommodation places, precisely to ensure that those who are likely to commit further offences are not allowed back on the streets on bail.

Tim Boswell: I wonder whether the Prime Minister might take the time to study the recent report of the Northamptonshire-South community health council, which reveals that the total number of nursing home beds in the south of that county declined by almost 25 per cent. in the 30 months from January 1999. Will he note that the report of which that forms part is on delayed discharges from hospital, and is he the only person in the country who can see no connection between those two facts?

Tony Blair: No, of course there is a connection. We allocated some 300 million of additional money before Christmas precisely in order to reduce delayed discharges. As a result, they have come down significantly. Indeed, according to my meeting yesterday with people in the health service, I think that more than 1,000 beds have been freed up through that additional money.
	I should tell the hon. Gentleman, who takes a slightly more reasonable view of such matters than some of his hon. Friends, that one reason why we have to make that extra investment into the national health service is precisely in order to deal with the problem that he draws attention to. However, the way to get in that extra investment is to support the policies of this Government, rather than to oppose that investment, as his Front-Bench colleagues do.

Joan Humble: Will my right hon. Friend join me in expressing sympathy to my constituent, Daniella Perry, an eight-year-old girl who was savagely attacked by a dog in a community centre in Fleetwood? In that particular case, the dog has been protected, but the young girl has not, because the attack took place on private propertyeven though that private property is a community centre run by the local council and open to the public.

Tony Blair: First, I express my sympathy to my hon. Friend's constituent and her family. Secondly, I know that the Minister of the relevant Department is in touch with my hon. Friend about that case and will be happy to meet her to discuss it. Obviously, beyond that particular case, it is a serious matter that may have implications for the general state of the law.

Iain Duncan Smith: In 1997, the Prime Minister said:
	we will never consent to any arrangement that goes against the freely expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar.[Official Report, 16 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 388.]
	Given that 80 per cent. of the population turned out on Monday to oppose his plans for joint sovereignty, does he now stand by every word of that statement?

Tony Blair: I do stand by it and of course we have not put proposals to people in Gibraltar yet. When we do put those proposals[Interruption.] Well, that is the process that we have agreed. We have agreed that there should be a process under which we discuss with the Spanish Government certain proposals. When those proposals are agreed, they will be put to people in Gibraltar. Of course, people in Gibraltar will have the final say, as I have always indicated.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister says yet, but his Government briefing yesterday was that a deal with Spain on joint sovereignty had already been agreed, that it will be presented within months and that whateverI repeat, whateverthe result of a referendum, the deal will remain on the table and the Government will withdraw political and economic support from Gibraltar unless it agrees to that deal. To be absolutely clear about the issue, will the Prime Minister now answer two questions? First, if the people of Gibraltar refuse to accept the deal in a referendum, will those plans be torn up and taken away? Secondly, will Gibraltar suffer any economic or political reprisals and will it continue to be supported by the British Government regardless, through the EU?

Tony Blair: Of course there will be no reprisals or penalties applied to the people of Gibraltar if they reject the plans. If they reject the plans, the plans are rejected by them. There is no question of the plans being able to proceed without their consent. That has been made clear throughout. I must say to the right hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members that this is a process that began under the last Conservative Government[Hon. Members: No.] Oh yes. This total opportunism by the Conservative party has to be exposed. The process began under the previous Conservative Government and it began for a very good reason: the present arrangements between Spain and Gibraltar suit nobody. They do not suit the people of Spain or Gibraltar or Britain. Therefore, under the Brussels process, which began under the previous Government, proposals will be put to the people of Gibraltar, butas I have said throughoutthere can and will be no change to the constitutional position of Gibraltar without the consent of the people of Gibraltar.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister did not answer the question. [Hon. Members: Yes, he did.] No, he did not. I asked specifically whether those plans would be withdrawn, torn up, taken away or whatever he wants. In other words, those plans would not lie around to bully the people of Gibraltar. Is it not the same for everybody? We have a pattern with this Government, whether it is a 90-year-old worried about their health care or Gibraltarians who want to stay British. First, the Government try to smear them. If that fails, the Government try to threaten them. If that fails, finally the Government abandon them. When will the Prime Minister accept that the people of Gibraltar do not want this deal? Is it not a reality that whatever he says, and all the spin, we can no longer trust his word?

Tony Blair: As I have said to the right hon. Gentleman in the last two answers I have given, if the people of Gibraltar do not accept the plans then they cannot be proceeded with.

Colin Burgon: Moving from a rock to sport, last Friday I had the honour of officially opening the sports facilities at the Wetherby sports association in my constituency. Those magnificent facilities are being delivered, first, thanks to a 500,000 lottery grant via Sport England, and secondly, thanks to the dedication of voluntary workers such as the chairman, Seamus Picker, and his team of volunteers. Bearing in mind the role that sport plays in this country in developing a healthy and socially cohesive nation, will my right hon. Friend outline to the House what plans the Government have for supporting sport at the grass-roots level in the many years ahead that we shall be in power?

Tony Blair: First, I pay tribute to those in my hon. Friend's constituency who have been working so hard on sport, which is dear to the hearts of many people throughout the country. There are more than 100,000 local amateur sports clubs up and down the country. We are working with them at the moment to see how they can apply for charitable status, because that is a big issue for them, but in addition there is an announcement that some 200 million of lottery money will be spread throughout the country, which will encourage these sports clubs.
	It is important that we give this encouragement to sport not only for its own sake but because, as many people now recognise, it is one of the best anti-crime policies that we could have. It is also as good a health and education policy as virtually any other. It deserves to be supported and we will support it.

Gregory Barker: Can the Prime Minister tell me why, after nearly six years of a Labour Government[Hon. Members: Five.][Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Gregory Barker: Five, then. Why, after five years of a Labour Government, in my constituency, are women with breast cancer[Interruption.] They may find it a laughing matter, but to me it is deadly serious. Why are women with breast cancer waiting an unprecedented 20 weeks to begin life-saving radiotherapy treatment?

Tony Blair: I will certainly look into the facts in the hon. Gentleman's constituency as, I have to say from experience, often when these points are put to me by Conservative Members on their constituency facts, they do not turn out to be exactly as they were represented to me. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman about breast cancer, as a result of the measures that have been introduced by the Government, we are referring people to a consultant within two weeks, and now 95 per cent. of people get referred within two weeks. That compares with just over 60 per cent. when we came to office. There is a particular problem with radiography at the moment, not just in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but throughout the countrypartly because, of course, there are many more referrals as a result of the two-week limit. But as a result of additional investment and the amount of equipment that we are putting in, cancer waits on the whole are down, not up.
	I think that if I quote the Health Select Committee report on cancer research published this morning correctly, although the Committee said that there was still a great more to do, it specifically found that there had been significant progress on cancer in the past couple of years.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree that the very welcome decision of the Commonwealth to suspend Zimbabwe fully justified an approach that sought to bring on board the rest of the Commonwealth rather than a unilateral approach by this country. Given the reports today of the charge for treason being pursued against Morgan Tsvangirai, can my right hon. Friend tell the House what further steps he would like the Commonwealth to take to try to give the people of Zimbabwe the Government of their choice?

Tony Blair: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The Commonwealth will of course consider what further steps to take. The decision to prosecute Mr. Tsvangirai is an indication of why the decision to suspend Zimbabwe is so justified.
	I pay tribute to the courage and leadership not just of Prime Minister Howard, but of President Mbeki and President Obasanjo. This has been a difficult issue for them in the current situation, particularly for South Africa because there is worry about instability in Zimbabwe, but I think that it was the right decision and that it sends a very clear message that not just the Commonwealth, but Africa is in favour of democracy and that Africa will not compromise with the issues of democracy. I believe that it has given a significant boost to the prospects of getting a partnership deal at the G8 in June that will allow, in exchange for Africa sorting out some of its problems of governance, a long-overdue increase in aid from the developed world.

Michael Mates: As I am sure that the Prime Minister is not aware of a dispute that is going on between two Departments, will he look into the fact that, despite the strongest recommendations from the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is refusing to give the Queen's jubilee medal to holders of the Victoria Cross and the George Cross? Will he look into that to ensure that the bravest of the brave are not deprived of that honour, which they so richly deserve?

Tony Blair: I will look into it, although I give the hon. Gentleman no promises.

Huw Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that to increase capacity in the NHS we need to increase the number of consultants who work for it full time? My constituents are impressed with the skill and professionalism of consultants, but concerned about the lucrative private practices that many of them have. Will he speed up the reform of the consultants contract so that doctors who are trained by the NHS work exclusively for the NHS and get the rewards that they deserve?

Tony Blair: As my hon. Friend will know, an intensive programme of negotiations on the new consultants contract is under way, and both the British Medical Association and the Government are negotiating in good faith on its terms. I can say to him at this stage that many consultants work immensely hard for the NHS all over the country, and they are highly dedicated and committed people. I am sure that we will find a resolution to those negotiations that allows consultants to work for the NHS while ensuring that they have the freedoms that they need.

Edward Davey: Given the Prime Minister's commitment to tackling youth crime and speeding up youth justice, can he tell my constituents why the Government propose to close Kingston magistrates court, which has the busiest youth court in south-west London? As he may not have heard about that proposal before today, can he give me his personal assurance that he will look into it and intervene to prevent the closure of an efficient and well regarded courthouse?

Tony Blair: In the light of the hon. Gentleman's question, I shall certainly look into it, but I have to say to him that closures take place for all sorts of different administrative, as well as cost, reasons. In respect of youth offending overall, as a result of the measures that the Government have introduced and the extra money that we have put into the system, we have halved the time that it takes to get persistent youth offenders to court.
	As regards Kingston magistrates court, I shall have to look into it as I do not know the facts.

Tony McWalter: I welcome the philosophically substantial speech that my right hon. Friend gave last week at the London school of economics, especially its contrast between the social individualism that he advocates and the selfish individualism that has so often characterised proceedings in this House. However, does he agree that some of his current policies are somewhat inconsistent with those principles, notably his policy on the House of Lords, and will he send them back to the drawing board?

Tony Blair: I hesitate to revisit the scene of an earlier triumph.
	To answer my hon. Friend's question, we believe that it is important to combine fairness and enterprise throughout, and that is what we as a Government are doing. In respect of the House of Lords, a consultation process is under way and we are listening to the responses to it. There are many different voices. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) is pointing to Labour Members to suggest that there may be differences on our Benches. I must say to him that I read very carefully the speeches that were made in the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and few Conservative Members supported his proposals. We all have a little homework to do on this. We must find a way forward that allows the House of Lords to remain an effective revising Chamber, but I personally should not like to see it competing with the House of Commons.

Peter Luff: On the crisis in the care homes sector, does the Prime Minister think that it is a bit rich to describe as investment the throwing of taxpayers' money at a problem that his Government have themselves created? Last Friday, I visited a care home in my constituency that is having to spend 30,000 to improve a perfectly adequate heating system just to meet the arbitrary standards that the Prime Minister praised a few minutes ago. Will he please revisit that policy before the care homes sector descends into complete crisis?

Tony Blair: I simply do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about the care home standards regulations and rules, which were the product of detailed consultation. Indeed, I remember that hon. Members from all parties supported many aspects of them at the time. It is important that those homes have proper care standards. I cannot comment on the specific heating system in the home to which he referred. However, he says that the extra money that we are investing in social services is simply wasted. With the greatest respect, that is nonsense.
	Care homes' biggest problem is that they do not believe that the fee levels are high enough, when they are often sitting on highly valuable real estate. In those circumstances, we have increased the amount of money that is put into social services, and people's ability to remain in their own homes and be looked after there. We believe that that is properly called investment. The hon. Gentleman has to decry it because he and the Conservative party opposed it.

Speaker's Statement

Mr. Speaker: I have looked into the point of order that the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) raised last Monday about the names published in support of early-day motion 949.
	It appears that some of the Members listed as supporting the motion had been told by the sponsor that their support would be assumed unless they indicated otherwise. Some of those Members have informed me that they were not aware that their names were being added to the motion.
	This is an important matter. Members should be aware that adding a name to any motion, like tabling a parliamentary question, is a formal proceeding in Parliament. Members may give the Table Office instructions on behalf of another Member, but it is incumbent on any Member who does that to ensure that he has the explicit consent of the Member concerned.
	I acknowledge that it is not the first time that this has happened. My view is that simply saying that names will be added to a motion unless a Member indicates otherwise is not sufficient and risks embarrassing Members whose names are used in that way. I look to the House to ensure that it does not happen again.

Castlereagh Break-in

Quentin Davies: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the break-in at Castlereagh police station.

John Reid: On Sunday evening, several people broke into a special branch office at Castlereagh in Northern Ireland, assaulted the duty officer and stole several documents.
	There has inevitably been much public speculation about who was responsible for the incident and the exact nature of the documents that were taken. The House will understand that, in the context of a live criminal investigation, it is not helpful to put into the public domain information that would otherwise be known only by the perpetrators or the investigators. Suffice it to say that all lines of inquiry remain open. As to the nature of the documentation, the Chief Constable has established a high-level team to assess any impact that its theft could cause.
	At this sensitive moment when the damage is still being assessed and a variety of remedial measures are being taken, I hope that the House will understand why I cannot be more forthcoming. However, I can reassure the House that the Government, like the Chief Constable, are absolutely committed to taking all necessary steps to mitigate any damage from this serious incident.
	The Chief Constable has appointed Detective Chief Superintendent Phil Wright to take charge of the criminal investigation. He has also referred the matter to the ombudsman. In addition, I have established a review to proceed in parallel with the criminal investigation that will report to me. It will be conducted by Sir John Chilcot, a former permanent secretary at the Northern Ireland Office, who has extensive experience of policing and security issues. He will be assisted by Mr. Colin Smith, a former inspector of constabulary and chief constable of Thames Valley, who will act as an assessor.
	I am placing Sir John's terms of reference in the Library of the House for the information of Members. The purpose of the review is to establish how the incident could have happened, to assess the extent of any damage caused to national security, to audit the measures taken in response to the incident and to identify any wider lessons on national security.
	Any breach of national security is a matter of grave concern. The work undertaken by the special branch of the Police Service of Northern Ireland bears directly on the safety of lives both in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom more generally. I am determined therefore that we will establish the facts surrounding this serious incident as quickly as possible, and ensure that all necessary remedial action is being taken.

Quentin Davies: The House will be grateful for that statement. No one will be in any doubt as to the seriousness of the incident for the morale and credibility of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and particularly for the viability of special branch operations. Police agents will obviously be very reluctant to maintain contact with their handlers while they fear that they might have been compromised. New sources are likely to be fearful of coming forward, and agents who think that they may have been exposed will face the agonising dilemma of whether to flee the Province, thereby perhaps increasing suspicion about them, or stay there, risking their lives.
	It is always possible, by mismanaging a crisis of this kind, to make it even worse. Does the Secretary of State agree that such an incident needs to be managed in a decisive but controlled and co-ordinated way? Otherwise, uncertainty, demoralisation and public disquiet will all be aggravated. Is it not the case that in this instance the Government's handling has not been controlled or coherent?
	The right hon. Gentleman said that there will be three inquiries. Of course the police must conduct a normal criminal investigation, but it is far from clear why it is necessary to have two further inquiries, one conducted by the police ombudsman and another under the direction of Sir John Chilcot. Is it not the case that the police ombudsman has the powers to conduct inquiries only where police officers are concerned, so if her inquiry runs up against individuals who are not police officers, she will be outside her remit? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is highly undesirable in such a case that there should be two separate inquiries? Clearly, we want one inquiry with a single responsibility to get to all the facts, and in which no one can say that certain matters are the responsibility of someone else. This action is not co-ordinated or controlled, and it needs a good deal more justification than the Secretary of State gave it.
	There has been a spate of rumours and speculation, as the Secretary of State says. Can he give the House an unqualified assurance that those rumours do not derive from press briefings given by himself, the Chief Constable or anyone responsible to him? Can he also give the House an assurance that if there have been leaks, he will undertake to investigate them?
	Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in retrospect it is unfortunate that he did not take the initiative and come to the House himself immediately after the incident, as he could have done on Monday, or ask one of his deputies to do so in his place? That would have enabled him to pre-empt the rumour mill and give an authoritative account of the position. Instead, he preferred to brief the press yesterday and had to be dragged to the Dispatch Box today by the official Opposition. Is not that an unfortunate way to treat the House? Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that when the Chilcot review, which we shall certainly support in any way we can, reports, he will take the initiative and come to the House to make a statement on that?

John Reid: First, I hope that I have not given the impression that I do not regard this issue as serious. Indeed, I have gone out of my way to say that I regard any breach of national security as serious in its immediate and wider implications, and I would not want to diminish in any way the seriousness with which I regard this incident.
	On the hon. Gentleman's second point, any breach of national security immediately raises problems of operational effectiveness and the prospect of putting anyone who is involved in danger. That is why we are assessing what may have been taken and why I want Sir John Chilcot to have regard, among other matters, to damage assessment of specific and more general operational capability and of the threat posed to individuals.
	The hon. Gentleman demanded, as a general proposition, that I act in a decisive and controlled way before attacking everything that I have done as decisive and controlled. I did act decisively yesterday, and there are various reasons why I thought it absolutely necessary to do what I did. Had the situation been such that the only or best option was to come to the House first, then I would have done so, but under the circumstances I was wise to discuss the matter with not only my security Minister but the Chief Constable and others in Northern Ireland before acting as quickly and decisively as possible.
	In fairness, the hon. Gentleman might have informed the House that my security Minister and I had a conversation with him, as well as others. That is not to say that it is not preferable to come to the House. As a general proposition, I agree with that and will try to do it whenever it is in my power to do so. I hope that he understands, however, that with fast-moving events, when decisiveness and control are so important, it is necessary to take decisive and controlled action, as he said.
	The hon. Gentleman also said that there would be three inquiries. I do not know what he bases that on. He agrees that there should be a police inquiry, which is absolutely necessary. I take it that he agrees that I should have taken decisive action to initiate a wider review. It is not yet apparent that there will definitely be a third inquiry by the ombudsman, but the Chief Constable acted correctly and appropriately by referring the matter to him when he decided that the threshold for the ombudsman's powers of inquiry had been met. To put it succinctly, the hon. Gentleman knows that the threshold for the ombudsman's powers to inquire are met when there may have been, or has been, a disciplinary or criminal offence by a member of the police. That threshold was met and the Chief Constable acted properly. It is now up to the ombudsman to consider the matter.
	On the hon. Gentleman's other points, no one to my knowledge with my authority or in my organisation has given details to the press of the incident as far as I am aware. Indeed, I will be amazed if that is the case because so much of what has appeared in the press has been inaccurate either in the detail or on the process. Although I should like nothing better than to rebut some of the inaccuracies, he will understand that on something as important and sensitive as this incident, that would put me down an avenue in which it would be difficult not to discuss the matter in detail. I hope that he and the House will be tolerant if I cannot give as much detail as I might like.

Chris Mullin: Is it not extraordinary, after all that has happened in Ireland, that there still appear to be parts of the secret state who think that they can act with impunity? My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is a long history of such inquiries in Ireland encountering a wall of silence and fizzling out after the lapse of time. Can I have his assurance that that will not be allowed to happen in this case?

John Reid: On the first point, I would be very wary of basing all sorts of propositions on a premise that a particular group, or a particular part of a particular group, was involved. The answer is that we just do not know, at this stage, the motive, the organisation or the individuals who may have been involved.
	The second point is that, as my hon. Friend says, there has been a long history of inquiries of this nature; there has not been a long history of my being Secretary of State, and I can assure him that if it is within my powerwhoever the individuals are and whatever their motiveand if there is any way of discovering that and dealing with it, it will be done. The inquiry has been established not as an attempt to divert attention or in any way to cover up the grievousness and importance of what happened, but precisely to try to elicit the information necessary to get to the truth. That is hugely important in terms of operations and for those people, including many brave people, who have acted according to their consciences in the past and who may or may not be in danger as a result of any breach of security. It is also hugely important for the peace process that we get to the bottom of what went on.

Lembit �pik: I thank the Secretary of State for prior notice of his statement. I also thank the security Minister for our informal conversation earlier this week, which satisfied me that the Government are, in fact, taking the issue very seriously.
	First, although having three investigationsthe hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) made some points about thismay not make it less likely that any investigation gets to the answer and the truth, would it not be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman formalised the interaction between those investigations to ensure that potentially useful cross-references are dealt with in a codified and organised fashion?
	Secondly, given the obvious possibility of internal assistance with this breachalthough we must not draw any conclusion until we have the factswhat steps does the Secretary of State intend to take to ensure that those involved cannot cover up some of the evidence that could highlight what happened? Thirdly, what steps has he taken as a matter of urgency to protect the welfare of individuals who may be seriously compromised by the theft of the information?

John Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. On formal co-ordination of any inquiries, I have already said that, in addition to the criminal investigation, it was appropriate for me to act decisively and to call an inquiry. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), with a little lightness, if I may say so, added a further inquirya leak inquiryduring his contribution, but the two inquiries are absolutely essential. However, of course, we want the maximum access to information for the review, as it will be named, carried out by Sir John Chilcot, but the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) will understand that the operational independence of the police in their investigation is a matter of some importance as well, so it is difficult to formalise because that investigation cannot, of course, come under political control. Nevertheless, I take his point about generally ensuring that one inquiry does not run across or prohibit the other. That is very important.
	The hon. Gentleman asks about measures taken to try to minimise the possibility of any cover-up or destruction and so on. I can assure him that, so far as I am awareobviously, I do not control the operation of the investigationa tremendous amount of work was done to seal off the area to try to ensure forensic evidence and so on was preserved. Every effort is being made to try to investigate all possible lines of inquiry.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the welfare of the individuals concerned, which is very important in any breach of security. I am aware that, where it is believed that there might be a threat, steps are being taken to inform those who might be the subject of any danger as a result of this or any other breach of security. That would be a natural thing to happen.

George Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the two issues that seem to be at stake are first, who did it, and secondly, how it was done? The arrangements that he has described seem eminently well suited to answering those two questions. Does he agree that it is at the least ill judged, and may turn outI hope notas events unfold, to be irresponsible, for the Opposition to seek to exploit this serious matter?

John Reid: On my hon. Friend's second point, yes it would be irresponsible for anyone to try to exploit this matter, particularly since, as he said, at this stage the two questions of who did it and how it was done remain unanswered. I would add a third question: why was it done? That is not clear either at this stage so in terms of motive, culprit and method, we are still at an early stage. I confess to my hon. Friend and to the House that I do not have a clear view on any of them at this stage. No one appears to have claimed creditif I may use the wordfor the incident.
	The questions that my hon. Friend mentioned on method and the culprits are important. The question of why is also important. However, whatever the answers to those questions, I would not seek to diminish the fact that any breach of national security is always of importance, and this one is no exception.

David Trimble: We view what happened in Castlereagh with the gravest concern. It is extremely serious and we are very worried about possible ramifications not just for national security but for the integrity of policing operations in Northern Ireland.
	I am also concerned about the potential multiplicity of inquiries. I can see a distinction between the police investigation and the review being undertaken by Sir John Chilcot and Mr. Colin Smith, but I am worried about the potential overlap between the police investigation and any action by the ombudsman. That concern is deepened by the weaknesses in the investigative capacity of the ombudsman's office, as revealed by the recent ombudsman reports. Can we have a clear assurance that the police investigation will be primary and that there will be no interference with that investigation until it has run its course and, we hope, identified the people who were responsible?
	I endorse what the Secretary of State said about being cautious about responsibilities on the issue. There is a tendency to be far too quick to run to conspiracy theories. I very much regret that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), for whom in many other respects I have a regard, seemed to feed that tendency of jumping to conclusions, and indeed on this matter jumped to the wrong conclusions.
	There is no doubt that those who were responsible in some way or other obtained detailed information about the police office at Castlereagh to obtain entry. That seems to be clear. We do not know yet how that information was acquired, and we must be careful not to pre-judge the matter. However, I cannot avoid saying that it appears to be linked to the very significant demoralisation among present and particularly former members of the police. The Secretary of State should reflect on that because that demoralisation, which is inseparable from the policies that he has pursued, has to a significant extent led to the problem before us. Indeed, that has been exacerbated by some current decisions, particularly with regard to uniforms.
	On the question that the Secretary of State raised at the end about why the break-in occurred, can he put the public mind to rest in one respect and eliminate one possible reason why it was done, by making it clear that the Government will support entirely the present arrangements for special branch, and will ensure that the capacity of the police with regard to special branch operations is increased, that their effectiveness is increased and that there is no question of using these events as a pretext for further run-down in that respect?

John Reid: The right hon. Gentleman said that he had the gravest concern about the incident, and he is right to be so concerned. I would expect him to be, like ourselves, thus concerned.
	The question whether there was inside knowledge is to some extent speculative, but that would appear to be the case prima facie. However, that does not lead us in any particular direction because, as the right hon. Gentleman points out, there might be a range of people who had inside knowledge. I do not want to speculate on whether they might be disgruntled or demoralised former police officers. There is a range of other people who might have inside knowledge as well. I know that all these matters will be investigated by the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the wider effects. There are always wider effects for the operation of national security, for the integrity of the process, the operations and, as he said, the policing effort in Northern Ireland and for the safety of individuals.
	With reference to special branch, we have outlined our plans in the implementation plan, but they are subject to discussion. The Chief Constable will make a recommendation and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we now have a Policing Board which deals with these issues. The board will no doubt want to consider all the ramifications of any change to special branch in the future, and I would not want to pre-empt its deliberations or decisions on the matter. I do not mean that the Policing Board will be considering that as a specific item arising out of the incident, but it considers all aspects of policing and will no doubt wish to speak to me. I see no reason why, in the first instance, the matter should lead us to any conclusions in any direction about special branch or any other element. I would not want to imply any premise about who was involved. None of us knows.
	As regards the ombudsman, I think that the Chief Constable was right in law to refer the matter to the ombudsman. A referral is appropriate on the basis of his judgment that prima facie it cannot be ruled out that a police officer may have committed an offence or behaved in a way that would justify disciplinary proceedings. As the Chief Constable said, however, there is no evidence at this stage to suggest that an offence has been committed by a police officer, but he nevertheless considered it in the public interest to refer the matter to the ombudsman.
	The ombudsman cannot properly investigate the matter in the sense that was suggested, running across the criminal investigation, as she cannot investigate Army or intelligence agencies. Clearly, it will be important for the police and the ombudsman to develop a close working relationship in any investigations. I stress that the matter has been referred to the ombudsmanthat is as far as it has goneand no investigation has started.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot of business today. I want to call all hon. Members who are standing. The House can assist me if hon. Members ask short questions and, of course, the Minister can help also.

Eddie McGrady: I welcomed the statement from the Secretary of State and the three inquiries, which will have three different objectives. Will he make it clear that Castlereagh police station is not an ordinary police station, but a sophisticated intelligence bureau and interrogation centre? Entry into it would require substantial detailed knowledge. Will he ensure that matters of national security will not in any way frustrate the investigations by Sir John Chilcot or the ombudsman? The popular belief is that many previous investigations in Northern Ireland have been frustrated by special branch. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that a full reportin the context of national security, but not frustrated by itwill be compiled?

John Reid: I can confirm that Castlereagh police station is not one that people would expect to be entered as easily as appears to have been the case, although I must inform the hon. Member that it is no longer the holding and interrogation centre that it used to be. I assure him that Sir John Chilcot and Colin Smith will report to me. They will have full access to all the information necessary for them to complete the damage assessment and the security audit, and to judge some of the wider implications of the incident.
	I believe that both of those gentlemen are eminently qualified for the task I have given them. Sir John Chilcot, of course, knows Northern Ireland well, and he has experience of policing and of intelligence work. Colin Smith is a former chief constable of the Thames Valley force, and is a member of Her Majesty's inspectorate of police. Both men are therefore appropriately qualified, and have been at the cutting edge. When it comes to investigation, people will accept that Colin Smith has been robust in any investigation that he has pursued.
	No one can guarantee anything in Northern Ireland, and I cannot guarantee that we will get to the truth. However, I can guarantee that I and the two gentlemen whom I have named intend to do our utmost to find out what happened.

Andrew MacKay: Many of us who have been involved in Northern Ireland for many years are, to say the least, mystified and appalled that Castlereagh could be broken into in the way that has been described. We therefore applaud the Secretary of State's decision to set up an independent inquiry under two such eminent men, both of whom have very good reputations in the Province.
	However, could not the Secretary of State go a little further than the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) proposed and suggest to the ombudsman that it would not be helpful of her to get in the way of the other two inquiries, for fear of muddying the water?

John Reid: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support. However, I do not think it is always helpful for me to suggest things to chief constables, ombudsmen or to anyone whose office carries a degree of independence. Although no decision has been taken to investigate the matter, as there is no evidence yet that anyone in the police service has committed an offence or a crime that would warrant disciplinary action, it was perfectly appropriate for the ombudsman to be informed, and for the matter to be referred to her. In addition, regardless of the outcome, a good working relationship between the ombudsman and the police service is essential.
	Two key things must happenthe criminal investigation must find out who is responsible, and the wider implications must be determined. That is why I have established the review.

John McFall: My right hon. Friend will be aware that some people fear that this incident could dent confidence in the peace process. He has taken decisive action in establishing the independent inquiry under Sir John Chilcot, but does he agree that it is very important that the inquiry report directly to him? Given the pain and discomfort suffered by some of the people who have had to lead similar inquiries in the past, will he assure me that the direct line that will exist between the inquiry and himself will give the process clarity? Does he have any idea when the inquiry's report might be published, given the national security limitations involved? Will he bear it in mind that the general population of the island must be reassured so that the great work accomplished by everyone involved in the peace process can be maintained?

John Reid: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments very much. He is a distinguished former Northern Ireland Minister, so his comments carry great weight. I can answer his question in the affirmative. Sir Johnand Colin Smith, through Sir Johnwill have a direct line to me and access to me. I have met Sir John, who has already made arrangements to do just that. That is important, not only in terms of trying to get to the truth of the matter but in terms of there being wider public confidence that we are trying to get to the truth of the matter. I can assure my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) that that is what we are about to do. [Interruption.] I cannot hear what the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) is saying. Perhaps he is having trouble with my accent because it is from a different part of the world and a different social background. However, I will attempt to speak somewhat slower in future.

Andrew Hunter: Although I welcome and support the overwhelming part of what the Secretary of State said, may I ask him to consider one point? By admitting that some people may be under threat as a result of the theft, he is inadvertently fuelling the media speculation that we all deplore. May I urge him to ensure that the assessment of the sensitivity and importance of the stolen papers is processed with the greatest possible speed and that decisive action is taken as a consequence to ensure that this media speculation comes to an end?

John Reid: I can please both the hon. Gentleman and you, Mr. Speaker, by saying that the answer to his questions is yes.

Nigel Dodds: Clearly, this event has caused palpable shock and concern right across Northern Ireland: it is a deeply worrying event. Is the Secretary of State in a position to tell the House that a security review not just of Castlereagh but of other key security installations has taken place and that immediate steps will be taken to tighten security at such installations in Northern Ireland? Will he give an assurance that, consistent with the need to get to the bottom of the matter and to seek out the truth, the inquiry that he has set up will act and announce its conclusions publicly as soon as possible, so that all the speculation and rumour can be put to rest as quickly as possible?

John Reid: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first point. Although I got back only yesterday morning, I believe that steps were taken immediately to ensure that security was improved, or at least tested, elsewhere. I will speak to the Chief Constable about this issue once we have finished this private notice question. Obviously, this matter will be included as part of any damage assessment and security audit, which is part of the task that I have given to Sir John Chilcot. I assure the hon. Gentleman that Sir John is seized of the need to do this as promptly as possible, but it is not easy to get answers in Northern Ireland, even given a considerable length of time. Of course, we want to get answers.
	Finally, I would like to be able to be in a position to give as much information arising out of any inquiry as possible. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that just as I am somewhat constrained today because of the wider aspects and implications of going into detail on matters of national security, that could apply to some of the information or conclusions that are drawn by Sir John in his review. I know that he will understand that.

Child Support Agency

Alistair Darling: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a short statement on the implementation of the child support reforms. As the House will know, the Government are reforming the system of child support and the Child Support Agency itself to ensure that more children see the benefit of regular maintenance.
	We consulted widely in 1998 and I announced our proposals in July 1999. I undertook to keep the House informed on progress towards the implementation of these important reforms. I have made it clear on many occasions that we would not implement the reforms until I was confident that the new system would work effectively.
	On 1 July 1999, I reminded the House that the present system had collapsed under its own weight in 1993 because the reforms were introduced too quickly and with too little thought. That approach has been endorsed by Members on both sides of the House and by the then departmental Select Committee. Its report of November 1999 recommended
	that the new child support scheme should not be implemented until the new computer system is fully operational.
	I said thenand it remains the positionthat we would not repeat the mistakes made in 1993 when the Child Support Agency was introduced. The timetable then was rushed: the organisation was not ready and some key aspects of the information technology system were not finally delivered until two months after the start date. So the IT, critical to the system, was simply not there. We know the consequencesthe system descended into chaos within weeks.
	Let me tell the House what progress has been made since 1999 to reform the existing system. First, we have put in place the necessary legislation. The primary legislation received Royal Assent in July 2000 and the regulations are in place, with some minor provisions currently before the House.
	Secondly, the Child Support Agency has been substantially reorganised to give a far better customer focus. As hon. Members will know, this has already made a difference. Levels of compliance have increased and complaints have fallen considerably.
	The third issue, which is fundamental to the delivery of these reforms, is getting the IT right. We face a major task in building a new IT system that can handle upwards of 13 million payments each year. It also needs to link up with other IT systems in the Department, which are based on 1980s technology.
	The new child support computer system being built by EDS is near completion. Testing has been under way for some weeks, in advance of the planned start date at the end of April. Those tests are continuing, but they are not yet complete.
	I want to see the new system in place as soon as possible. We know that any new IT system will inevitably have teething problems on introduction, but we will proceed only when I am satisfied that it is working to the standards that we expect.
	In my view, until the testing process is complete, I will not have the assurance that I need to authorise the start of the new system. I have therefore decided for that reason to defer the planned start date. The new system will be implemented only when the supporting IT is operating effectively.
	I have a clear responsibility to Members of this House and the staff who have to operate the new system. Above all, I have a clear duty to parents and children to make sure that the system works effectively.
	The delay is frustrating and regrettable. There was a choice: I could have taken a chance, but that would have meant taking a chance on support for children, and for parents. In my judgment, it is better to take the time needed to get it right, rather than repeat the mistakes of 1993.
	The new system will continue to be thoroughly tested. I will keep the House updated on progress. I undertake to give the House sufficient notice of the date the new system will start and to confirm how we intend to bring on new and existing cases.
	The House will want to know the cost implications of the delay. Inevitably, there are some, but the contract with EDS specified that the Department will not pay for the computer system until it meets the standard required, and that remains the position.
	We know about the problems of the past. They arose in part because the rules were too complicated, but also because the decision was taken in the early days to press ahead when there was real doubt about whether all the necessary systems were in place. I will not let that happen again.
	This was a difficult decision. I know that many Membersand parentsare anxious to see the changes introduced as soon as possible, but I judged that the risk of proceeding before testing was complete was unacceptable. I therefore took the view that it was right to tell the House the current position as soon as possible, and I will continue to report to the House on progress towards implementation of these much needed reforms.

David Willetts: It is usual to welcome a statement from a Minister, especially from this Secretary of State who has made only one oral statement to the House in the past 15 months. At least today's statement has a certain rarity value.
	Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that his statement announces no new policy? Instead, it announces further IT problems at the CSA which are, sadly, not new. They are, indeed, regrettable. They are serious for the families who will be left in limbo. We need more information on the new timetable for the implementation of the changes, on which his statement was completely silent. We hope that a debate can take place when we can scrutinise those matters in Government time.
	The changes were originally to be introduced in October 2001. Then the Secretary of State announced in a written answer that the scheme would be introduced by April 2002, saying
	by which time successful introduction can be achieved without unacceptable risks.[Official Report, 31 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 466W.]
	I presume that he regrets saying that now.
	Having announced a delay in that written answer, the right hon. Gentleman now rushes to the House to make an oral statement on further delays. It would be far more significant and newsworthy if he had come to the House to announce an IT project that had been successfully delivered on time and on budget. That would be a statement that we would all enjoy hearing.
	Why have we suddenly had a statement on IT in the CSA after 15 months of almost complete silence? Why not make a statement on the Government's redefinition of their poverty target for children so that they can appear to meet it? Why not make a statement on the crisis in funded pensions, on which the Secretary of State refused to comment?
	The explanation for this statement is that the right hon. Gentleman knows that later this afternoon the House will have a desperately important debate on the commitment of our troops in Afghanistan. The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues ought to be present for that debate, but the longer the gap between Prime Minister's questions and the debate, the easier it will be for them to stay away. That is what this statement is all about.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must speak to the statement, not tell us what it is all about.

David Willetts: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I simply wish to record that the House gave a clear expression of its will yesterday under Standing Order No. 24. I do not wish to stand between the will of the House and the important debate that awaits us soon.

Alistair Darling: I am really very sorry that the hon. Gentleman has taken that stance. He knows a lot about this subject and the House often listens with respect to what he has to say. His response today was a little petulant.
	First, I would have liked to make the statement yesterday, but I was told that I could not do so because it was an Opposition Supply day. I was left with no alternative but to make it today. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have said on many occasions that Ministers ought to come to the House and be answerable to the House. Here I am.
	The Child Support Agency is a matter of real interest to just about every hon. Member. I took the view that rather than use a written answer or a press briefing, or putting the story in the newspapers, it would be better to come to the House and say that, because of the difficulties I described, it would be necessary to defer the implementation of changes that many hon. Members as well as, of courseand, in many ways, more importantlymany of our constituents want to be implemented as quickly as possible.
	Yes, there have been IT problems in the past. There were problems when the CSA was introduced in 1993. The IT did not arrive until two months after the then scheme was introduced. The hon. Gentleman is no doubt also thinking about NIRSa contract that was signed in 1995, had to be renegotiated in 1996, and was a year late by the time the system was switched on, by which time the old system had been decommissioned, causing all sorts of problems with national insurance records. Perhaps he is also thinking about the benefits payment card. The contract for that was signed in 1996. It had to be renegotiated in February 1997 and, by the time we took over, it was running three years late and the costs had almost doubled. Yes, it was a mess. Yes, it had to be looked at.
	I have another example, and this time the Conservative Government deserve some credit. The jobseeker's allowance was supposed to be introduced in April 1996. The Government of the day were advised by consultants that introduction would not be possible then because of all sorts of difficulties. To their credit, they decided to let it slip for about six months and then it was implemented satisfactorily.
	We know that there are problems with large IT systems. As I have described, our problem at the moment is that the vital testing necessary to be sure that the new computer system to back the CSA changes works has not yet been completed. I have taken the view that until that testing is complete I am not prepared to authorise its commissioning. I take full responsibility and I think that I am right to come to the House to explain the position. Members can hold me to account for the decision that I have taken. I am sorry that, out of sheer opportunism, the hon. Gentleman has taken a completely different position.

Tam Dalyell: May I offer the strongest support for the Secretary of States's attitude? Is he aware that the staff of the Child Support Agency have some of the most difficult and certainly the most harassing jobs in the civil service? Anything that adds to this harassmentand, often, ill temper and bitternesswould be a disaster. He has taken absolutely the right attitude of caution. It would be much better to wait until these teething problems are sorted out. Given the expertise that is now concentrated in the system, is there any chance of it being available to other countries that might regard it as an export proposition? Britain is a leading figure in this field.

Alistair Darling: I am very grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. Given the present position, I would be hesitant about going into the export market just yet. Perhaps one day the system will be resold in different parts of the world. Of course, it is owned by EDS, which supplies it.
	In response to my hon. Friend, it is worth bearing in mind the fact that the Child Support Agency has to deal with 400,000 new applications every year, which works out at about 1,000 new applications every day. Therefore, had there been any problems with the IT systemI believe that there is sufficient risk that there might have beenit would not be long before thousands of cases built up in a backlog. That is why I am taking a cautious approach, and I make no apology for that whatever. However, I am glad that my hon. Friend the Father of the House appreciates that Ministers should come to the House to explain these positions so that we can be held to account for our decisions.

Steve Webb: I entirely agree with the Secretary of State; he is absolutely right not to introduce the system if it is not ready. However, that sidesteps the issue of who is responsible for its not being ready. Does he recall that two years ago I warned his Department in oral questions in the House that if it did not get a grip on this process and monitor it tightly this is just the sort of thing that would happen? He has already failed to mention in his statement the six-month slippage from October to the coming April, and he still cannot say when the system will be introduced. He said that it is near completion. If so, why cannot he say whether it is months or years away?
	The key point is that this is not the first computer botch in the Secretary of State's Department. He mentioned NIRS2, and I understand that the pension credit system is not all it might be. The CSA computer system is now behind schedule. Does someone in his Department monitor these projects or does he take responsibility? If not, weeks before a project is due to be up and running, someone comes along to say, We've only been testing a few weeks. Sorry, guv'nor, it doesn't work. Is it not time that he took responsibility for projects in his Department and made sure that they were ready on time? Instead, he comes to us just a few weeks before the project is due to be ready, wrings his hands and says, We'll let you know but we can't tell you when.

Alistair Darling: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's final point, I have said on many occasions that I take full responsibility for everything that happens in my Department. That is my job as Secretary of State. It is my responsibility to make sure that we deliver an effective working system.
	It might help the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members to know that I and my officials became concerned at the turn of the year that the testing was not proceeding as fast as we thought it should. We approached EDS, which is supplying the equipment, and it increased the resources devoted to testing the system. I was anxious to introduce the system, if at all possible, in the second part of April as originally planned. I thought that it was worth testing the system and making sure that it was completely installed to deliver. However, I came to the view towards the end of last week that, on the information I had, it would be irresponsible to authorise the commissioning of the system. Therefore, the Department is aware of the slippage that has taken place on testing, and we have taken that up with EDS.
	As the hon. Gentleman should knowperhaps he does notwe intend to run the pension credit system on the Department's existing computer systems for the first two years, because we think it better to do that than to build a system.
	On the hon. Gentleman's first point, he asserted that he had warned us about this problem two years ago, but his policy then was to transfer the CSA back to the courts at a cost of about 1 billion. However, I will give him credit. I read in The Guardian todaythis may come as a surprise to some of his Liberal colleaguesthat his policy has changed and that he now wants to transfer everything to the Inland Revenue. I would have thought that anyone in the Inland Revenue would think long and hard about saying, Yes, let's have the CSA imposed on top of the tax system. I say this in the nicest possible way to the professor, but he should think beyond the next press release before he begins making policy on this issue.

Terry Rooney: Many of us went through the turbulent years from 1993 onwards when we faced five years of chaos, two-year delays in assessments and thousands of children not receiving the payments to which they were entitled. The Conservatives had to set up a special MPs' hotline with 50 staff to deal just with the complaints coming from the House. May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on an intelligent and sensitive decision that means that the 2.5 million children and the 2 million parents who are in the CSA system will have a decent system and not a cock-up like we had in the past?

Alistair Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is worth bearing it in mind that, when the new system is introduced, it will benefit many people. The formula for calculating the maintenance due will be far simpler. Rather than the hundreds of pieces of information now required to make a calculation, only three or four will be needed. That means that we can get the maintenance paid within a matter of days. At the moment, nearly a third of new applications take more than six months to process. The new system will make a big difference and it is also fairer to people who have second families, a point that many hon. Members have pressed for some time. I am disappointed that we are not able to introduce the system at the end of April as I had intended, but the risks are such that it is better to take time to ensure that we complete the testing satisfactorily before we introduce the new system.

Archy Kirkwood: It is commendable that the Secretary of State saw fit to make this statement to the House. I concur with the view that, faced with the options before him, he had no alternative. If he had done anything else, he would clearly have been in breach of an undertaking that the Under-Secretary in the other place gave to a Select Committee that the new system would not be introduced until the IT was robust. To that extent, I agree with the Secretary of State's decision.
	I wish to press the Secretary of State on the testing that is necessary. Is he facing hardware, software or systems problems? It seems to me that it will take weeks to get the problems ironed out and, if he is to be fair to everyone, he will have to give at least three months' notice of a new date for implementation. My working assumption is that it will be at least six months from April before the new system is introduced. Surely the sooner we can end the period of uncertainty, the better for all concerned.

Alistair Darling: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's final point about the importance of completing the testing and fixing a date for implementation. It is important to remember that new cases will be dealt with first. That was always our intention. We will deal with existing cases after that. It is important to get the system right and then fix a date rather than do things the other way around.
	I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said in the first part of his remarks. On his second point, I point out that several features need to be tested. There are problems inherent in any attempt to rebuild a Department's IT systems, and I have told the House on many occasions that that is what we are having to do because of years of lack of investment. The new system will have to operate alongside the Department's existing systems and the technology built in 2001-02 is different from the technology that was designed in the 1970s. The current CSA computer was built in the 1970s. It is an off-the-shelf model that was bought from someone in Florida; it has never been entirely satisfactory.

Anne Begg: I have been struggling with British Airways' new booking system in which a nice voice says, Thank you for your patience, but we have a new system that will speed up your booking. However, four weeks later, booking takes longer than it did before. I therefore appreciate why my right hon. Friend could not proceed with the introduction of the CSA system until it was up and running. There is nothing worse than a system that is not fail-safe and that has not been fully tested.
	However, some of my constituents who expected to be on the new system by 1 April may be dismayed to discover that their contributions will be calculated under the old system. Can the Secretary of State assure us thatonce we begin processing existing claimantsthose who will perhaps miss out between 1 April and whenever the new system is fully up and running will be the first to go on to it, provided that it works as intended?

Alistair Darling: Like a number of Members, I am familiar with the notice that greets passengers at the British Airways check-in desk, explaining the wonders of its new computer system. That system is not quite fixed, and I have some sympathy with British Airways in that regard at least.
	On my hon. Friend's substantive point, as I said in my statement, once I am satisfied that the system is working, I intend to inform the House as to how we will take on new cases. The key to success, however, is to try to keep the system as simple as possible. Indeed, it was the complexity of the existing system that crippled it. I intend that we will bring on new cases once the system starts up, and when they are settled in we will bring on the existing ones. It would not be wise to undertake a backdating exercise, because that would inevitably lead to the stockpiling of cases and a lot of confusion. It would be better to proceed according to the original plans that many people signed up to, and I know that my hon. Friend participated in the Select Committee that considered the issue on several occasions.
	The more complex we make the system, the worse it becomes. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) said yesterday that he wanted a simple system but with more complications. I strongly urge my hon. Friend to give that proposal a very wide berth, and I am sure that she will.

Martin Smyth: I welcome the statement because it is important that we be kept informed. The Secretary of State said that there might be some increase in costs, but that the bill for the system will not be paid until it is delivered. Is the change to the new system attributable to a particular attitude of mind in the Department, to a particular view on how information should be delivered, or was there a problem with suppliers who did not measure up to demands?
	I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State will confirm in a further statement how new and existing cases will be brought on. I have already been approached by people who are on the list and waiting for back-payments. They have been told that they will not be dealt with until the new system is up and running. Surely that is wrong, given that the relevant details are known. I would imagine that they could be fed into the computer system fairly quickly. Why should payments to people who have already wasted a lot of time, and spent a lot of money looking after their children, be held back?

Alistair Darling: On the last point, the new system is not yet operational. It has not been fully tested, so it would not be safe to feed information into it. The hon. Gentleman is right: the Department has written to peopleas it was duty bound to dotelling them about the plan to introduce the new system at the end of April. We will write to them again, as it is clear that we cannot in fact bring them on to the new system at the end of April. As I have said, the situation is deeply regrettable and I am very sorry for those people who will suffer some degree of inconvenience. However, it would have been far worse to plough on in a manner that presented unjustifiable risks.
	On the information technology system itself, as I said in my statement, the contract is so structured that we will not pay for it until we accept it as operational. That may seem obvious, but not all contracts have been structured in that way. I made it clear that, given the history of IT projectsto which the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) referredwe should not pay for the computer system until it works. The difficulty is that testing has yet to be completed. It is clearly in our interestsand in the interests of EDS, which will not get paid until the system works as I describedthat testing be completed as quickly as possible. As soon as I am satisfied that we can proceed, I undertake to return to the Housedespite opposition from the Conservative Front Benchand explain the position. I have to say that this is the first time in 15 years as a Member of this House that I have encountered an Opposition who do not want to hold Ministers to account.

Chris Pond: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the impact of the delay is to some extent mitigated by the additional resources provided and the administrative changes implemented by the Government for the existing system? Can he assure us that CSA staff will be encouraged to continue to improve that service, even under the existing system? Does he agree that because that system was introduced in haste by the previous Government, it has left hundreds of thousands of families to repent in anguish and that the main victims of that have been the children? Will he strengthen his resolve not to introduce the new system, which I think is much better, in haste, as he has been encouraged to do by the cynicism and sneering from the Opposition?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that the CSA has been significantly reformed in the past three years. That was necessary for the new system, but was desirable anyway. The chief executive, Doug Smith, has made huge changes in management and in structures. It is a tribute to the staffas my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned earlierthat so much hard work has been put into making substantial changes, including more face-to-face interviews and more time being taken to explain how calculations are made. As a result, compliance rates have increased. Most of our staff wanted to get ahead with the new system, but my hon. Friend is right to say that the worst thing to do would have been to press ahead with the system, especially when the information I had suggested that Members of Parliament would have had cause for complaint had I done so. As I said to the hon. Member for Northavon, I accept full responsibility for the matter and the decision was right.

Andrew Lansley: Does the Secretary of State realise that his claim of accepting responsibility for the matter might ring more true if he had spent more time talking about what is happening in 2002 and his efforts to introduce the new system, rather than spending most of his statement talking about the events of 1993? Given that he has deferred the introduction of the new system, I put it to him thatas a member of a Government for whom management by targets is the order of the dayhe should set a new target, even if it is not a definite commitment, to bring the new system into operation on a given date, so that he can be held to account as the responsible Minister for his performance against that target. The Secretary of State has twice been asked to set a further target date for implementation of the new system and has signally failed to do so. Why will he not give a target date?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman will remember from his previous job as an adviser to the previous Government that Governments get into awful difficulties if they fix targets, sometimes plucked out of the air, and may have cause to regret doing so afterwards. It is important to ensure that the testing process is completed. Once that is done, I intend to fix a date for starting on new cases. As I have said, I will come to the House to spell out how we propose to take on those new cases. I am very sorry if my mentioning 1993 brings back bad memories for the hon. Gentleman, although I fully understand why that might be the case.

Joan Humble: May I applaud my right hon. Friend for his determination to ensure that the new system for the CSA will succeed? We all agree with that aim. May I also reinforce the concerns of existing clients about the announcement that the introduction will be deferred? Many of my constituents who are absent parents are suffering real financial hardship. They come to see me regularly and look forward to the implementation of the new system, but are already concerned that they have no clear idea of when they will be brought on to it. When my right hon. Friend returns to the House with a timetable for implementation, as soon as he is reassured about the efficacy of the new computers, will he consider especially the needs of existing clients, many of whom are in serious difficulties?

Alistair Darling: I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend has said. I am aware that it is felt that the present system does not take sufficient account of the circumstances of many people, especially those who now have second families. Obviously it is too soon for me to say at this stage what the precise impact will be on existing cases in terms of the time taken.
	I simply repeat the following point, which I think my hon. Friend accepts. In 1993, there was cross-party support for the CSA and my recollection is that the then Opposition agreed with the then Government on introducing the thing quickly, but that proved utterly disastrous. As I have told the House on several occasions, the situation is regrettable, but it is better that we spend time getting the arrangements right, because in the long term that is the better way of helping both new and existing cases.
	We should remember that the agency now deals with about 1.4 million childrenwe project that in four years' time it will be 1.7 million. It is very sad that that is the case, but it gives the House an idea of the number of individuals involved. We should remember that we are talking about individuals about whose well-being we need to be concerned.

Rob Marris: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having the courage to make the announcement and to withdraw the system before it came in at half-cock and did not work. I also congratulate him on making his statement to the House first, rather than to the press, as has sometimes been done. I agree with my right hon. Friend that it would be wrong to implement a new system for the CSA until the IT is sorted out. After all, the Government are addressing years of underinvestment in his Department.
	However, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that there are no other untoward delays in IT implementation elsewhere in his Department, whether in benefits or in pensions, or particularly in the Employment Service, where I believe that EDS is the lead contractor, as it is with the CSA?

Alistair Darling: In the Employment Service, as I believe my hon. Friend knows because he is a member of the departmental Select Committee, the jobpoints, which are now all successfully in place, are one example of quite a big IT project. That project was started under the Conservative GovernmentI say that to show that I, at least, am bipartisanand has now been delivered successfully. There are other examples.
	The Department for Work and Pensions has some of the biggest computer systems in the western world. The systems deal with 7 billion transactions every year. It is inevitable, therefore, that anything that the Department does will take time. It takes an awful lot of investment. But one thing on which I strongly agree with my hon. Friend is the need for that investmentevery penny of which, to conclude on a very partisan note, has been opposed by the Conservative party.

Organ Donation (Presumed Consent and Safeguards)

Tom Watson: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the removal of organs for transplantation purposes, after death has been confirmed in a person aged 16 or over, except where a potential donor previously registered an objection or where a close relative objects; and for connected purposes.
	By the end of this week, five people will have died unnecessarily on the waiting list for an organ transplant, and more than 200 lives will be needlessly lost this year because of a shortage of organ donors. The gap between the number of organs available and the number of people needing a transplant is widening. Since the House last debated presumed consent at the instigation of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) in April 2000, the waiting list for organ transplants has risen by several hundred. Seven thousand people are now on the transplant waiting list and the queue is growing by the day. The sad truth is that one in 10 of those people waiting for a heart or lung transplant and 7 per cent. of those people waiting for a liver transplant will die, and many others will have lost their life before they even get on the waiting list.
	I should like to quote from a letter from a Mr. Michael Newbold, who says that his wife
	was in hospital with what was later diagnosed as a serious, rare and incurable heart condition . . . after more than 100 hospital admissions she was told her only hope of continued life was to have a heart transplant. She has now been on the list for 15 months, and no suitable organ has yet become available.
	We know that fitness and good health is no guarantee that we will not eventually need a replacement for at least one of our organs. It could happen to any of us.
	Of course, we are aware and saddened that transplant can only normally come as the result of the death of a fellow human being, but surely it is a good thing if another person benefits from that tragedy?
	That is just one of thousands of cases, which demonstrates the urgent need for something to be done about the desperate need for more organ donors. The Bill would introduce an opt-out, rather than an opt-in, system, so that everyone would be a potential donor unless they registered their objections otherwise. A central computerised register of objectors would be established and would have to be consulted by doctors before transplant could go ahead. The system would have several additional safeguards. The deceased's close relatives would still be consulted in every single case and would have the ultimate veto over donation. The change would not apply to children under the age of 16, where explicit consent would still be sought in all cases.
	In 1971, when even opting in was seen as controversial by some, contracting and opting out was raised in the House by the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Thirty years on from his ten-minute Bill, the major medical advances in transplantation have made the Human Tissue Act 1961 even more outdated. The attempt that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) made last year to amend the Act through his Transplantation of Human Organs Bill is to be applauded.
	We all have constituents whose lives have been touched by transplants. They are the miracle of modern medicine because, in death, they can bring the gift of life to others. Once considered to be perilous operations, they are now routine. Indeed, King's College hospital will have performed more than 2,000 liver transplants by the end of this month.
	Public opinion has moved on, but although studies have repeatedly shown that up to three-quarters of the population would be willing to donate their organs after death, only 15 per cent. have signed up to the NHS organ donor register. In fact, with one of the lowest organ donor rates, we lag behind Europe. More than a dozen countries on the continent use some form of opt-out system and have far higher donation rates than in this country.
	The system used in Belgiumrather than, for instance, that used in Franceprovides a good model for the United Kingdom. Belgium established a register of non-donors in 1987. Citizens can express their objection to organ or tissue donation at the town hall. By the end of 1995, nearly 2 per cent. of the native Belgian population had registered their objections to donation. It is mandatory that the register be checked before any organs are removed, and in practice relatives are still consulted. Countries that have a system of presumed consent also tend to have higher donation rates than those without.
	As the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) pointed out to the House in July 1998, there is well-documented and convincing evidence that when Belgium changed from contracting in to contracting out there was an increase in organ supply. In Antwerp, they kept the opt-in system, but had a big public education campaign. In Leuven, however, they adopted the new law. Over a three-year period the rate of donation in Antwerp stayed the same, whereas in Leuven it rose from 15 to 40 donors per year.
	My hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has set the challenging target of doubling the number of individuals on the organ donor register to 16 million by 2010. That is a laudable aim, and I welcome any proposals to increase donation and bring life to others. In my region, The Birmingham Post has run a successful campaign, regularly printing donor cards and promoting the organ donor register to its readers in the west midlands. Ultimately, however, if we are significantly to increase the rate of organ donation we also need a change in the law and a positive change of emphasis towards organ donation, which this Bill on presumed consent would achieve.
	Medical experts have suggested that a system of presumed consent would increase the rate of organ donation by at least 20 per cent. in this country, thus going a long way towards tackling the problems I outlined at the beginning.
	I am grateful for the support of so many Members on both sides of the Housenot least for their backing for early-day motion 527. I am also pleased that 40 Members have joined the NHS organ donor register in the last few weeks. We, as Members of Parliament, should be leading the way and encouraging as many of our constituents as possible to sign the register.
	The Bill is also backed by the British Medical Association, many individual doctors, surgeons and patients' groups, and many of my constituents. While opinion in the country is mixed, a clear majority now favour soft presumed consent, and they look to the House to lead rather than follow.
	It is time for a public debate on presumed consent. It is time to prevent any further widening of the gap between the number of organs available and the number needed for transplant. It is time to drag our organ donor laws into the 21st century. This Bill is about saving lives, and with the support of the House we can begin to address the chronic shortage of organs for transplant.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tom Watson, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, Mr. Parmjit Dhanda, Dr. Evan Harris, Dr. Ian Gibson, Dr. Nick Palmer, Mr. Peter Pike, Mr. Nicholas Soames, Mark Tami, Dr. Richard Taylor and Dr. Jenny Tonge.

Organ Donation (Presumed Consent and Safeguards)

Mr. Tom Watson accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the removal of organs for transplantation purposes, after death has been confirmed in a person aged 16 or over, except where a potential donor previously registered an objection or where a close relative objects; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 April, and to be printed [Bill 114].

Afghanistan

Bernard Jenkin: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
	Leave having been given on Tuesday 19 March under Standing Order No. 24.
	Our calling of this debate on the war in Afghanistan should not be allowed to cast any doubt on our continuing support for the Government in the war against terrorism. We applauded the Prime Minister's instant and unequivocal support for the United States after 11 September. More recently, his very clear statements about the need to deal with Iraq demonstrate that he remains shoulder to shoulder with the United States. The Prime Minister will continue to have our support while he continues to do the right thing.
	In the statement by the Secretary of State for Defence on Monday, the Government announced a very significant escalation of our commitment to combat operations in Afghanistan. Let there be no doubt that we support the principle of that decision; but it was wrong for the Government to make such an announcement without anticipating the need for a proper debate on the subject. I asked the Government for a debate and they could have avoided the need for me to invoke Standing Order No. 24, but Ministers ignored our polite requests.
	Yesterday was an important day for Parliament. Mr. Speaker made it clear that that situation was unacceptable to the House of Commons, and his decision to accept our request for a debate clearly had support in all parts of the House. Please will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, pass those remarks and our thanks to him?

Mark Hendrick: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman's judgment could be called into question? There was an Opposition-day debate yesterday, which was used to discuss the Chinook helicopter crash. This matter could have been raised yesterday, instead of using this procedure to raise it here today.

Bernard Jenkin: First, I do not think that this is going to be an occasion to make party political comments. [Interruption.] I say to the Secretary of State for Defence that I was making a point on behalf of the House of Commons, not my party. Secondly, I think that the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) will find that quite a number of his right hon. and hon. Friends are grateful that this debate is taking place.
	45 Commando are trained in high-altitude mountain warfare, and it is in mountain warfare that they are now to engage. They are trained for close-quarters combat, for flexible, autonomous and lightly armed operations beyond the front line, with the minimum of logistical support. The United States made the request because, undoubtedly, they are some of the finest troops that anyone will find on this earth. They are ideally fitted to the task, which is to defeat our enemiesthose who threaten our people in our country and the peoples of our friends and allies. That is why we have our armed forces: to protect our people.
	The men of 45 Commando Royal Marines understand the dangers, but they will relish the challenges ahead, provided they have a clear mission, under a clear chain of communication and command, access to tactical lift and close air support when required, and the best equipment.
	The House is entitled to ask Ministers about the reasons for their decision and for assurances. In the spirit of genuine inquiry, I invite the Secretary of State to use this occasion to build confidence in this deployment and in the Government's decision.
	First, can the Secretary of State tell the House exactly when the Government first received indication of the request? I believe that it may have some bearing on the short notice of his statement.
	Secondly, on the mission, the objective must be to assist United States armed forces to search out and defeat the remaining elements of largely non-Afghan al-Qaeda terrorists. Once that job is done, 45 Commando should come home. Can we be sure that that is indeed their mission? Can the Secretary of State clarify exactly who is still resisting in the mountains of Shah-i-Kot? Do we have enough intelligence to assess their number, their capabilities and their determination, and to develop a clear understanding of how they operate? What lessons have we learned from Tora Bora and Operation Anaconda? How will we improve the effectiveness of co-operation with indigenous Afghan forces, and what measures will be taken to prevent al-Qaeda from simply running away, as they have in the past?
	The CIA informed the Senate armed services committee yesterday that coalition forces will face increased danger of attack from small pockets of al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters, who remain hidden in the mountains in what was described as classic insurgency format. They will use very small groups of fighters to attack and perhaps to pin down much larger coalition formations. Can the Secretary of State explain how we will avoid being bogged down in such fighting, so that we can press ahead to the main objective and a swift conclusion?
	I would be grateful if the Secretary of State explained what he meant when he said on BBC Radio 4 yesterday:
	It is an open-ended commitment to the extent that we have a job to do to deal with the remaining elements of al-Qaeda and Taliban.
	He cannot seriously be saying, and I do not for a moment think that he is, that he has no idea how long the operation will take. However, the House should be aware that the Canadians are already extending their six-month commitment to these operations.
	There is also the question of force rotation. How long is it intended that 45 Commando remain in combat before being relieved? With each commando of 3 Commando Brigade being short of one companythat is, short of 100 men each out of some 900that will create manning challenges across the whole corps. Can the Secretary of State say something about how that will be addressed?
	Thirdly, the chain of command should be clear. I understand that 45 Commando and 3 Commando brigade headquarters, which will be set up at Bagram airport, will be fully integrated into the US operational command of Operation Enduring Freedom. That is under the field command of the US General, Major-General Hagenbeck, who commands the US 10th Mountain Division. Why have we been asked to provide a brigade headquarters at all, as it is unnecessary for the deployment of this one battle group? Are we keeping an option open to deploy further British troops to expand the UK commitment to Enduring Freedom, or will Brigadier Lane take command of some of the US elements already in the field?

Andrew Robathan: On that point, if a brigade headquarters is effectively sitting on top of commando headquarters, it will be a top-heavy structure that will get in the way of the operational deployment of the commando itself.

Bernard Jenkin: I hear my hon. Friend's concern and hope that the Secretary of State will deal with that point.
	My understanding is that the United States would not have made its request unless it was confident that we already shared a joint concept of operations and that Brigadier Lane already had a relationship and operational understanding with those with whom he will be working. The Royal Marines should be more than happy to work alongside 10th Mountain Division's second battalion or US 101st Airborne Division. Standard NATO operating procedures will underpin their effective co-operation.
	Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many troops of all nationalities this formation will put in the front line of operations? The UK will have some 900 troops, plus some unspecified minor elements in the front line. The United States has only 2,000 troops in this theatre, as against our 1,700. How many US troops will be held forward for front-line operations? Might the British force comprise as much as 30, 40 or even 50 per cent. of the front-line fighting capability?
	Fourthly, Lord Inge, former Chief of the Defence Staff, raised an important issue in the other place on Mondaythe lack of British dedicated air power, known as close air support. The Americans already have carrier-based F-14s and F-18s and land-based F-15s and A-10 ground attack aircraft alongside the Apache attack helicopters and heavy bombers based in Diego Garcia. Have we considered offering to deploy our own dedicated close air support? The Italians are flying off a carrier in theatre and the French have deployed Mirage 2000D jets based in Kyrgyzstan and Super Etandards from the carrier Charles de Gaulle in the Indian ocean.
	Sadly, too many British ground-attack Jaguars are either committed to other operations or laid up waiting for new engines, other spares or pilots. If we have nothing else to deploy, has the Secretary of State been given the necessary assurances by the United States about the availability of close air support for British forces as and when required?
	Will our Royal Marines on the ground be able to communicate directly with US aircraft, which is vital for quick response and to minimise the risk of friendly-fire self-inflicted casualties? Frankly, only dedicated air support to a particular operation will do.
	That leads to the wider question of communications. What systems will 45 Commando be using? Will they be secure, and will they be fully interoperable at all tactical levels with the Americans and any other nation's forces in theatre?
	I am sure that the House can have every confidence that a suitable welfare package will be in place for communication with families back home and that they will have the best medical support available. If we are to rely on US field hospital support, will British medical personnel be available to deal with casualties?
	I shall now move on to the other British military operation in Afghanistan that is part of the war against terrorismthe international security assistance force, or ISAF, under UK command in Kabul. That, too, was originally intended to be a swift and decisive deployment, but has proved more protracted than the Government originally anticipated. There needs to be a clear understanding that ISAF is completely separate from combat operations elsewhere. We are concerned about mission creep, the open-ended commitment to our leadership of ISAF and the size of our contribution to it.
	The Conservative party is not always content with the way in which the Government choose to use British armed forces. We do not always agree with the way that our limited and over-extended armed forces are spread across the globe on so many lower-level peacekeeping tasks that are more suited to a gendarmerie than a fighting army. I recall the words of a soldier of 2 Para, who was reported in the press as saying that Kabul is great experience but
	not what we are trained for.

Geoff Hoon: Will the hon. Gentleman give one example of a mission from which we should withdraw?

Bernard Jenkin: If I may say so, that is a tiresome and cheap point. I do not begin to assume that it is easy to withdraw from such operations. It might be fairer to ask which original deployments we would not have made. [Interruption.] No, that is right. We have made our views on that clear. I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that short deployments are justified from time to time, but all too often under him, and his predecessor, those have become open-ended commitments, putting further pressure on our already stretched armed forces. We should not devalue the gold standard of our armed forces in this way.

Malcolm Savidge: rose

Bernard Jenkin: I will press on because many people want to speak.

Tam Dalyell: May I ask a tiresome question? Does the Conservative party have any qualms about supporting what is both a military action and a peacekeeping role? Can one do the same thing in the same country at the same time?

Bernard Jenkin: That is a question that I have raised from the Dispatch Box before and I note that it has also been raised by the leader of one of the minority parties. I do not believe that the Government have ever given a satisfactory answer. [Hon. Members: You answer the question.] Well, the answer is that if everything goes well and there are no unforeseen eventualities, there might not be any difficulties. However, as soon as something unexpected occurs, such difficulties might be created. It is unsound military doctrine to have two completely separate types of operation in the same theatre under split chains of command with split objectives. It invites another uncertainty into the picture, and we remain concerned about that.
	What exactly is the goal that we are trying to achieve in Kabul, and when do we think that it will be achieved? How did we ever believe that it could be achieved under a United Nations mandate of just six months? Why did the Government give such fulsome assurances that we would get away with only three months' commitment from our troops? What has been the outcome of discussions about the future leadership of ISAF? The Government led us to believe that Turkey had made a firm offer to take over. The Secretary of State said:
	We have received an offer from Turkey, which would be willing to take over at the end of the three-month period.[Official Report, 14 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 5.]
	On Monday, we expected that to be confirmed by the Turkish Prime Minister. An announcement has yet to be made.
	I also asked on Monday about the financial contribution that Britain is being asked to make to support Turkey's leadership. I understand that Turkey is now demanding $300 million for a six-month operation, which is likely to be funded by the United States and the United Kingdom alone. The Turkish Defence Minister is in London today. Will the Secretary of State give us an update on the situation? What provision has been made, if any, for the eventuality that Turkey declines to take over ISAF? I dare say that the Turkish commanders are asking the same questions about the long-term prospects of ISAF.
	I regret to inform the House that many of the fears that we expressed when the Government announced ISAF are becoming a reality. It looks as though our troop commitment will become longer; it will be impossible substantially to reduce the numbers that we have committed and no other nation is willing or able yet to make a commitment to take over ISAF's leadership. Now Mr. Brahimi of the United Nations has called for an extension of ISAF's mandate, which can only compound the difficulties facing the Government. Of course, there remains the underlying issue of two operations taking place in the same theatre, which the Father of the House raised a moment ago.
	I want to keep my remarks as short as possible. This debate was vital for the House of Commons to be able to do its job of scrutinising the Government's decision, but it is also an opportunity for hon. Members on both sides of the House to send a message of support to all those in the British armed forces who have been called upon to fight for our security, our values and our beliefs. I regret that the Foreign Secretaryor indeed the Prime Ministeris not in his place, but I am sure that the House will join me in wishing our forces in the field the very best of luck and every success in the weeks and months ahead.

Geoff Hoon: The House already knows a great deal about the deployment of British troops to AfghanistanI went through much of the detail during my statement on Monday. I do not intend to repeat that detail, but I am delighted to be able to take this opportunity to answer the various questions that have been asked and to clear up a number of misconceptions.
	Let me begin by making three points to set the context for the rest of what I will say. It is essential that, in discussing the detail of the deployments, we do not lose sight of the bigger picture. First, we are right to act in Afghanistan. The terrorist attacks in the United States last September were only possible because Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda had been able to draw on the support and shelter offered by the Taliban regime. If we had not responded, there was no doubt that bin Laden and his accomplices would have carried out further attacksperhaps, by now, even in the United Kingdom.
	We were right, therefore, to act in self defence under article 51 of the UN charter. We were right to act to prevent Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda from posing a continuing terrorist threat, and we were right to act to break the links between Afghanistan and international terrorism and to try to reintegrate Afghanistan as a responsible member of the international community to ensure that those links could never be established again.
	Secondly, the action that the international community has taken has been remarkably successful. As I said on Monday, Afghanistan is now a very different country. The decision to deploy considerable military force against the terrorists and their supporters has been vindicated. Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network have been dealt a heavy blow. The Taliban regime, whose support was so important for al-Qaeda, is no more. The decision to deploy the international security assistance force to Kabul to help the Afghan Interim Authority to maintain security in the capital has also been vindicated.
	Afghanistan is beginning to return to something like normality. Given its recent history, perhaps that is hard to believe, but I saw that change for myself when I visited Kabul some weeks ago. There were market stalls full of food, people out on the street and normal life was slowly returning.

Alex Salmond: Notwithstanding what the Secretary of State has just said, surely the seriousness of the deployment shows that the conflict in Afghanistan is very far from over, despite what the Prime Minister said a number of weeks ago. Does that not underline the danger of the foolish talk of extending spheres of conflict to other countries before the situation in Afghanistan is fully stabilised? Is it correct, as press reports suggest, that the German and Russian Governments believe that any offensive military action on Iraq would require a new and specific UN Security Council resolution? What is the Government's attitude to that position?

Geoff Hoon: I had the privilege of meeting the Russian Foreign Minister this morning and the subject of Iraq was not raised or discussed. The hon. Gentleman and journalists seem to be raising the prospect of military action, although the Government have, in fact, repeatedly said that the question of Iraq has not even been decided and, certainly, that the prospect of any military action has not been resolved.

Several hon. Members: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind all hon. Members that this Adjournment debate is about Afghanistan, not Iraq.

Geoff Hoon: rose

Douglas Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Geoff Hoon: I will give way on the subject of Afghanistan.

Douglas Hogg: As one who supports the deployment of British troops to Afghanistan, but one who also wants to reinforce parliamentary authority, may I say to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be right for the Government to come to the House and ask for an express vote authorising that deployment? Will he be so good as to say why he is not seeking the express authority of the House?

Geoff Hoon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has much longer experience of this House than I. He has supported Governments who have deployed forces and has never raised that question previously. He has sought to do so only when a Labour Government have taken responsibility for such decisions. He therefore needs to ask himself why he makes that point today when he never made it to a Government whom he supported over a long period. With his experience of the House, he knows that there is no automatic need for a vote. Why, then, should we take seriously such a question today?

Edward Garnier: What forces does the Secretary of State have available to reinforce those whom he is rightly deploying in Afghanistan? What forces does he have available to reinforce those in other theatres while we are deploying in Afghanistan? I repeat that I fully support the moves that he and his Government are making at the moment.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his question. I assure him and, indeed, the House that we have a sufficient number of forces to take on any military actions that might be necessary in the short term, notwithstanding the deployment of 45 Commandonot least because it has been held in readiness for precisely this kind of operation for some time.

Nicholas Soames: I also entirely support this deployment, but will the right hon. Gentleman clarify the answer that he gave to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier)? Given the specific and inevitably dangerous and time-limited nature of the deployment, what forces has he further stood up to replace the 45 Commando battle group in the event of the commitment being required to continue?

Geoff Hoon: As the hon. Gentleman knows from his experience in the Ministry of Defence, there is a process whereby forces who are deployed are replaced. That is part of the normal process of plotting the commitment of Britain's armed forces over a long period. He also knowshe might need to assist some of his Front Benchers on this questionthat the issue is the nature of any further operations that arise. As he well knows, if there were an immediate threat to the territory of the United Kingdom, for example, then a great number of deployments would have to be effected and a great number of forces returned to the UK to deal with that threat. I assume that he is not talking about that kind of operation. Therefore, the normal arrangements for the rotation of our forces would proceed as planned.

Malcolm Savidge: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Geoff Hoon: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I need to make a little more progress.
	Another context in which I make my remarks is that of British forces playing a vital role in the success of the situation in Afghanistan. I shall not run through in detail once again the contribution that British forces have made, but it has been very considerable. British forces have a reputation right around the world for their skill and professionalism. Time and again, they have made a massive contribution to bringing stability to the world's trouble spots. Afghanistan is the latest example of that. We take immense pride in all that our forces do and in the credit that they bring to the United Kingdom. Let me take this opportunity to note our appreciation for the widespread support in the House for the work that British forces have done in Afghanistan and for the work that they will continue to do. That support means a great deal to our forces and in particular to their families.

Malcolm Savidge: Specifically on the subject of this deployment, does my right hon. Friend recognise that, although many of us would support it, we should still feel, for many reasons such as overstretch or the risk of distracting ourselves from the main campaign against terror relating to the events of 11 September, even more wary of getting involved in war in Iraq?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already said that this Adjournment debate is about Afghanistan.

Geoff Hoon: I turn now to the more detailed issues and questions that have been raised. I shall deal first with the international security assistance force. As the House is aware, the United Kingdom agreed to take on the leadership of this force from its inception for a limited period. We took on this role for a number of reasons. It was a job that had to be done, and done well, if the Bonn agreement was to have the best possible chance of success.
	The United Kingdom was particularly well placed to do that. Our armed forces had the right capabilities and experience in expeditionary operations and rapid deployments. We knew that we could provide effective command structures and enablers to get a force in and up and running in the time scale required. We were right to take on that responsibility.
	The fact that we have been leading the security force is reflected in the number of British troops that have been deployed to Kabulup to 1,800 personnel, along with another 300 or so to repair Kabul international airport. Of course, the actual size of our contribution fluctuates from day to day. The sort of capabilities that we need change over time, and we are also limited, to a certain extent, by the capacity of the local airstrips.
	We made it clear that we would hand over our leadership of ISAF after three months. We always planned to transfer the responsibility by the end of April. As I said in the House in January, and again two days ago, Turkey has indicated an interest in taking over as lead nation of ISAF. We are in detailed discussions about that with Turkey. Good progress was made when a joint UK/US team of officials and military officers visited Ankara last week. We are making more progress in further military technical discussions with Turkey this week.
	That such negotiations take time should surprise no one. What is at issue is the transfer of the leadership of a large and complicated multinational force that has a demanding task to fulfil. Of course, Turkey wants to get it right, to make sure that it has the right structures, and, where necessary, the right support, to ensure that ISAF is as successful up to June as it has been so far.
	Turkey will need continuing contributions of troops from other nations. Certainly the United Kingdom will continue to have troops in ISAF after we have handed over the lead. We have promised Turkey that that will be the case. Other nations have done so as well. That does not change our determination to draw down the number of British troops deployed as part of ISAF at that point. As I have made clear on a number of occasions, we are looking to make a significant reduction in the number of British troops, but not to withdraw them completely.

Bill Wiggin: On 19 December I asked the Prime Minister if he could tell us the maximum amount of time that our troops would remain in Afghanistan. In the course of his answer, he said:
	I know that there has been some speculation that we would be sending thousands upon thousands of troopswe are notor that they would be there for a very long timethey will not be.[Official Report, 19 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 287.]
	Has that changed?

Geoff Hoon: No, that has not changed. The position is precisely as the Prime Minister set out and as I have set out. We are seeking to engage in a process of rebuilding AfghanistanISAF is an important part of that processwhile at the same time ensuring that Afghanistan is secure against any continuing threat from al-Qaeda or the Taliban, and that the wider international community is similarly secure.

Ronnie Campbell: Given the fact that when Russia had its troops in Afghanistan, it got a bloody nose and got bogged down, particularly in the mountains, what is the difference now between the two conflicts?

Geoff Hoon: That is one of the things that I did discuss this morning with the Russian Foreign Minister. [Interruption.] I am amazed that the Opposition find that remarkable. Surely it is vital that we should discuss the situation in Afghanistan. Opposition Members, having instigated the debate, should recognise that.
	On my hon. Friend's question, the difference is the way in which the Soviet Union tried to deal with Afghanistanlargely by occupying ground, which obviously made it vulnerable to attack, whereas the whole purpose of the operation that we are discussing today is to ensure that in swift search-and-strike operations, we remove any threat, not specifically to our own forces, although that is part of it, but more generally to the stability of Afghanistan. That is a very different concept and approach.

James Gray: The Secretary of State says that we will not have thousands and thousands of troops in Afghanistan. Can he tell the House how many troops we have in Afghanistan?

Geoff Hoon: I shall certainly be able to do that in a second, as I go through the detail. It is more sensible that I should do so in the context of what I am saying to the House.
	As for the wider future of ISAF, the House will know that United Nations Security Council resolution 1386 permits the force to remain in Kabul for six monthsthat is, until 20 June. As I said on Monday, the resolution may well be renewed, extending the duration of its deployment within its existing area of responsibility. Certainly, it is clear that such a force will have a continuing role to play in bringing security to Kabul and its immediate surroundings.
	Let me make it clear that speculation that ISAF will become a NATO force, a European Union force, or anything other than a coalition of the willing is just thatspeculation.

Linda Gilroy: My right hon. Friend referred earlier to the pride felt by the families of service men going out to Afghanistan. He will also know that those families are used to dealing with facts that are often difficult, and that their pride is mixed with anxiety. However, speculation about the future can cause particular difficulties, especially for families with young children. Will my right hon. Friend join me in urging Members of this House, and commentators, to be measured and restrained when raising issues, and considerate of the families involved?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a good point. I entirely endorse what she says. One reason why so much trouble is taken to brief forces personnel and their families about the precise nature of operations is to avoid the sort of speculation that so often causes the worries that my hon. Friend quite properly describes.

David Laws: The Secretary of State will be aware that families will be very interested in the duration of the latest deployment. He will be aware that, after he made his statement on Monday, senior Ministry sources briefed newspapers that the latest deployment could be expected to last about three months. However, the right hon. Gentleman has said that the latest deployment represented an open-ended commitment. Will he tell the House which version is correct?

Geoff Hoon: Like the spokesman for the official Opposition, the hon. Gentleman is taking my comments out of context. When I was asked whether the deployment was open ended, I responded by saying that it was, but that the number of forces that would be deployed had to be limited by the length of time that any individual could be asked to spend in a very difficult situation such as obtained in Afghanistan.
	The deployment will last as long as it takes to deal with the continuing threat. However, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), and the official Opposition, appear to want me to give a precise figure for the length of the deployment. That simply does not make sense. The deployment will be for as long as it takes to deal with the continuing threats. If it becomes necessary to replace the Royal Marines in-theatre, that decision will have to be taken according to circumstances on the ground. Anyone who considers the matter for any time will appreciate the common sense of that approach.

Nicholas Winterton: I agree with the Secretary of State: the deployment must be open ended, as we have to win the battle. I fully support the deployment of 45 Commando to Afghanistan, and the wonderful work being done in Kabul, but will the right hon. Gentleman assure me and the House that our military will not be deprived of any of the resources or equipment necessary to undertake the task successfully?

Geoff Hoon: That is uppermost in my mind, and in the minds of the senior military personnel responsible for the deployment. As I shall explain in due course, we are sending the Royal Marines in part because of their considerable skill at operations of this nature. They are trained for precisely the circumstances that obtain in Afghanistan. I certainly endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), and I shall ensure that his recommendation is carried through.

Michael Fabricant: Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?

Geoff Hoon: I really do need to make a little more progress. I hope that hon. Members will be patient. I have yet to deal with the deployment of 45 Commando. If questions are raised when I do, I shall be able to deal with them in context.
	There has also been speculation about a possible expansion of ISAF's area of responsibility. This is set out clearly in UN Security Council resolution 1386 and in the military technical agreement between ISAF and the Afghan Interim Administration. The security situation outside Kabul is very different from the situation in the city. What is clear is that, ultimately, security in Afghanistan is a matter for the Afghans themselves. We will continue to look at how we can help them in this, especially through the process of security sector reform.
	Before I move on to talk about the deployment of 45 Commando, let me repeat that the United Kingdom is committed to the continued success of ISAF. Transferring our role as lead nation will not change that. ISAF has done great work, not just by patrolling the streets of Kabul, important though that is. Helping to train the first battalion of the new Afghan national guardhelping, for that matter, the new police force with such basic needs as pens and notepadshelps to ensure the future stability of Afghanistan.

Edward Garnier: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way to me for a second time. I want to follow up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I know that the MOD will wish that its resources are fully behind those who are to be deployed in Afghanistan and the majority of the House is behind the MOD in that. I wanted to be assured that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Ministers were equally behind the MOD, because without the Chancellor's support, much of what the Secretary of State is doing, perfectly properly, will be hampered.

Geoff Hoon: I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Chancellor of the Exchequer fully supports the deployments that have been made and will ensure that all the financial costs of these deployments are returned to the MOD budget in a way that has been consistent across a number of Administrations. There is no difficulty about ensuring that process, which is agreed between Departments and has been agreed regularly between the MOD and the Treasury.

Jenny Tonge: With this new deployment of fighting troops in another part of Afghanistan, are not the ISAF troops in Kabul in much greater danger? If they are attacked by one of the remnants of al-Qaeda, as they are calledwe do not know how big these remnants arewill they stand by and say, Sorry chaps, we do not fight. We are here to keep the peace? Will not the war then spread back to Kabul?

Geoff Hoon: I will try to be as fair as I can to the hon. Lady, but the short answer to her question is that if she had been listening to anything said since 11 September, she would know that there have been fighting troops in Afghanistan since the first deployments. That has not affected the security of the ISAF during that long period of time.

Jeremy Corbyn: What is the Secretary of State's analysis of the situation in Afghanistan beyond Kabul? How far does the writ of the Afghan Government run? How many of the various warring factions of the Northern Alliance are still at war with each other? Is there a Government in control of the whole country? Are we not in danger of involving ourselves in a long-term and serious civil war?

Geoff Hoon: That is a good question and one that clearly needs addressing. The issue has concerned Chairman Karzai, who raised it here during his visit. I recognise that it remains of concern to the Administration there. Butthis is a very important butthe people that I met when I was there, who represented a number of different ethnic groups from different parts of Afghanistan, were all equally determined to take this opportunity of rebuilding that country. They wanted to take the opportunity of the international community's support to ensure that the kind of civil war that has so disfigured Afghanistan in the past will not be allowed to return.
	That is not to say that there are not tensions, or that there have not been, from time to time, clashes. But, overall, the country has remained remarkably committed to the process of reconstruction; more committed, perhaps, than at any other time in its recent past. That is a testimony to the determination of the Afghan people to take this chance to ensure that their country can return to the international community.

David Winnick: Is it not the case that if we had not intervened in the first place, the only Government in existence in Afghanistan would have been the Taliban? I wonder whether some of the critics would like that to happen again. If I have any criticism of the allies, it is that they have been somewhat over-optimistic about the elimination of terrorism. But is not the essence of this matter that if the terrorists are not eradicatedI assume that the whole purpose of the exercise is to do precisely thatthe allies will be revisiting this business in Afghanistan within a short period of time? It will come back as a nightmare.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend's second point, which I made at the outset, is absolutely right. On his first point, I suspect that that is a matter for historians. When the history of this period comes to be written, what I think will be remarkable is not the Northern Alliance's reoccupation of a territory in the north of Afghanistan, but the astonishingly rapid collapse of the Taliban in those areas where many commentators said that they were strongest because they drew their strongest supportin the south. The Taliban collapsed in the south in a matter of weeks, indicating that ordinary Afghans simply had no time for their extremism.

Bernard Jenkin: We have given the Government unequivocal support in that battle on that question. My question arises from the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn). What is the Secretary of State's assessment of the numbers of Taliban and al-Qaeda forces that are still resisting in the mountains in the east of Afghanistan? Does he have an assessment?

Geoff Hoon: There is an assessment. The number is initially in the hundreds; clearly it could be in the thousands. If the hon. Gentleman thinks about the nature of the deployment that we have announced, he will realise that the purpose of putting forces on the ground is, in the first place, to search out the remaining elements. Without putting forces on the ground, it will otherwise be an extraordinarily difficult military task to identify numbers. In those circumstances, we will need to take decisions as and when that information becomes available. We will ensure at that stage, according to the operations that are being conducted, that we have the right kind and number of forces to be able to deal with that threat.

Several hon. Members: rose

Geoff Hoon: I should like to make some progress if right hon. and hon. Members will forgive me.
	The deployment of 45 Commando to Afghanistan is entirely consistent with our campaign objectives. It does not undermine, or even threaten to undermine, our support for ISAF. Since the military campaign began, we have made clear our determination to act to prevent Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda from posing a continuing terrorist threat. That is why British forces have been involved in operations on the ground in Afghanistan for some months now.
	We have also made it clear that rooting out the remaining elements of al-Qaeda will take time. That was a constant theme of our statements in the early days of the military deployment. Even in the early period after 11 September, defence analysts rightly pointed out that search and strike operations against al-Qaeda and Taliban elements were likely to continue into the spring. Certainly, al-Qaeda ceased to exist as a coherent force some months ago, and the Taliban regime has long since been removed from power.
	However, as the recent USA-led Operation Anaconda has demonstrated, sizeable elements of al-Qaeda and the Taliban remain in Afghanistan, hidden away in the remoter areas of the country. We have to deal with those threats. The threat of attack from these groups and individuals remains high. If we do not deal with them, they will threaten all that the Afghan people and their supporters in the international community have achieved so far. They would certainly work to retain Afghanistan as a base for training and organising terrorism. Left to regroup, there is no doubt that al-Qaeda and its supporters would continue to pose a direct threat to states outside Afghanistan, including the United Kingdom. That is why we are deploying 45 Commando to join United States troops in continuing operations against these al-Qaeda and Taliban remnants. It is simply continuing the work that we started last October.
	The decision to deploy 45 Commando makes sense. They are able to deploy quickly, having been held at high readiness on HMS Ocean in the Arabian sea and in their bases here in the United Kingdom. They are also trained to be able to manoeuvre quickly across difficult terrain. The Royal Marines are expert in mountain and cold-weather warfarethey have trained in this role since the 1970s. All Royal Marines undertake mountain training every year45 Commando last did so only last December. Elements of 3 Commando brigade exercise in Norway each year. They are equipped to fight in arctic conditions.
	The Commando group is also able to sustain itself. It must be able to call on the support of heavy weapons. The Commando group is equipped with machine guns and mortars. It also has a battery of 105 mm gunsa formidable piece of highly mobile artillery.

Oliver Heald: I of course support the deployment announced by the Secretary of State. Will he tell us whether it is correct that other Governments are continuing to support al-Qaeda? There is a suggestion in the press today that Iraq might still be supporting al-Qaeda.

Geoff Hoon: I have certainly seen the press speculation. I have saidthis remains the best information on the subjectthat there are no obvious links between Iraq and the events of 11 September. However, we are well aware of Iraq's general support for terrorism and its condoning various terrorist acts, which clearly is a great cause for concern. I cannot comment further on the press reports. I certainly have nothing to add to what they say.

Michael Weir: On 45 Commando, which is based in my constituency, I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about its usefulness for this operation and I agree, but given his earlier answer about the unknown number of al-Qaeda fighters in the mountains of Afghanistan, the fact that the terrain is difficult and treacherous and that those fighters can fight fanatically, as was shown in Operation Anaconda, this could be a long operation. Has he had any discussions with other nations that have specialist troops in that area about those troops rotating with 45 Commando or other British troops to ensure that the operation can finally be finished?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman makes a proper point, but perhaps I need to explain in a little more detail the sort of operations that 45 Commando will be conducting and, indeed, the sort that were conducted by the Americans and others during Operation Anaconda. We are not talking about a pitched battle, or about tens of thousands of al-Qaeda lining up to fight the Royal Marines. We are talking about a series of small pockets of resistance.
	Frankly, part of the difficulty is that it is almost impossible to say precisely how many of those small pockets there might be in the remoter parts of Afghanistan, or the numbers involved. Each operation against each of those discrete pocketsthere is little doubt that we have been able to deal with communication between elements of al-Qaedawill be separate. As we progress through the countrythat is very much the programme that General Franks has outlinedwe will be able to take each stage at a time.
	I think that the hon. Gentleman implied that this is an all-or-nothing commitmentwe either commit ourselves to deal with all the elements of al-Qaeda that we discover or we do not. The answer to his question is that this is a continuing series of smaller scale operations, working through the country to eliminate those pockets of resistance as we find them.

Several hon. Members: rose

Geoff Hoon: I will give way to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).

Dominic Grieve: The operations in the east of the country clearly lie close to the border with Pakistan and there has been much comment about the porous nature of that border and the ability of al-Qaeda terrorists to move back and forth across it. What steps will be taken to deal with the problem of al-Qaeda terrorists taking refuge in Pakistan in the tribal areas and then returning to Afghanistan? Unless that is dealt with, there must be a danger that there will be a continuous pool of fighters who can cross the border and cause problems.

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair pointit was raised on Monday in the questions following my statement. In truth, as I set out then, it will be an extraordinarily difficult military exercise to seal that border. I was asked whether that was contemplated and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not; it is simply not possible, given the terrain and the circumstances. Obviously, part of the military planning is to have a means of organising the forces involved to deal with those who might try to escape from the initial pocket of resistance that is attacked. That was part of the battle plan for Operation Anacondaa part that worked extremely successfully.

Andrew Robathan: I support this deployment. The Secretary of State mentioned the equipment for 45 Commando and its arctic training. That equipment is vital while the snows are in place in the hills of Afghanistan, but within a month those snows will be melting and heat will be the problem. He is talking about small groups of troops deployed across the country. They will need to change from arctic to tropical or desert kit. Has that been worked out?

Geoff Hoon: I do not think that there is much desert at 10,000 ft in Afghanistan, but I will certainly ensure that those troops have the appropriate kit should the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has described arise.

Peter Kilfoyle: My right hon. Friend described in some detail the sort of operations that 45 Commando would be involved inhighly mobile and highly focused. Would he characterise those operations as in any way similar to the search-and-destroy missions that took place at an early stage in the Vietnam conflict?

Geoff Hoon: Not in the least. The terrain is very different, as are the circumstances and there is a very different history. My hon. Friend has sought hard to make that comparison and I am sorry to disappoint him with my answer.

Hugh Robertson: One element that was missing from the order of battle that the Secretary of State took us through was any light armoured component to the commando force. Such a component was used very successfully in the Falkland Islands and in a number of other operations since, and would seem to be ideal for the present operation. For example, what about the use of mobile gun platforms? Has any thought been given to that matter? If not, will the right hon. Gentleman give it some thought?

Geoff Hoon: I am sure that some thought has been given to it, but I am not entirely sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman's premise. I am not convinced, given the terrain in which the troops will be operating that I have seen and the rapidly moving nature of the operations that I anticipate, that light armour will be of much assistance. Certainly, that was not the case for Operation Anaconda. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should study more carefully the contour map of Afghanistan before making that suggestion.

Hugh Bayley: The campaign objectives are to prevent al-Qaeda forces from carrying out further terrorist attacks, which is why almost all hon. Members on both sides of the House support the deployment. What will happen to prisoners who are taken? Will they remain in Afghanistan and will they be treated under British or American law?

Geoff Hoon: Prisoners will be dealt with on exactly the same basis as they have been in the past. Most are still held in Afghanistan. I anticipate that those prisoners who can contribute to further understanding of the events of 11 September will be handed over for questioning to the United States.
	Before I took those interventions, I was pointing out that 45 Commando has a long history of operating and training alongside US forces, including in northern Iraq and Kosovo. The Royal Marines possess highly skilled forward air controllers, who train regularly with US forces. So, 45 Commando is ideally placed to join troops from the US and a number of other nations in further operations against al-Qaeda and Taliban remnants in Afghanistan. The House will recall that troops from several nations took part in Operation Anaconda. That is why we have decided to deploy that particular force. Our decision is notabsolutely notas some have suggested anything to do with British public opinion being more ready to accept the possibility of casualties than US public opinion. That suggestion deserves the contempt that it has already received.

Bernard Jenkin: I fully concur with the right hon. Gentleman on that matter. Can he inform the House of when the Government received the request from the United States for this deployment? Obviously, his decision is a response to that request. I understand that he was indisposed over the weekend and therefore had some difficulty responding personally to some of the issues.

Geoff Hoon: I will deal with that question in due course as it makes more sense to deal with it in the chronology that I have prepared.
	Some people have tried to read things into the fact that we have chosen to deploy the group now. The decision was taken following a formal request from the United States at the very end of last week and in close consultation with them. It has not been taken because the Americans or the other coalition forces are exhausted or need to be rescued, or have somehow failedthey did not. They fought in Operation Anaconda and they won against a heavily armed enemy, dug into prepared defensive positions in the rocks and caves. We should applaud their success, not try to decry it as some have done.
	Therefore, the specific answer to the question posed by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) is Friday. Obviously, that decision followed, as such decisions always follow, a long period of contact, consultation and discussionnot only about the particular requirements that an ally has, but the sorts of forces that we have available and that can be deployed in appropriate time and in the appropriate circumstances.
	The Opposition defence spokesman also suggested the other day that we were deploying this force without dedicated air supportsomething that he repeated just now. As we have made clear time and again, the Commandos will operate alongside the United States. They will be able to call on an extraordinary array of air power. The expert military advice that I have received is that there is no need to augment coalition air power with our own strike aircraft in support of this particular deployment. The House should be aware that British forces have very recent and very relevant experience of co-operating with the United States and drawing on its close air support during ground operations in Afghanistan. As the commanding officer of 45 Commando made clear on the radio this morning, we routinely train with US forces and use common procedures. He is quite content with the arrangements for fire support, as am I. That is not to say that the Royal Air Force has no role here. It does, most obviously through the Chinook helicopters that we are deploying, but also through the range of reconnaissance, air transport and air-to-air refuelling that has supported the coalition so successfully since last October. I am sure that these assets will continue to play an important role in future operations, including those that 45 Commando may undertake.
	Some have suggested that this deployment will contribute to the supposed overstretch of the armed forces. Certainly, our three services are extremely busy. That is also true of the Royal Marines. This time last year, no one could have predicted that more than 6,000 British service personnel would be engaged in operations in Afghanistan. However, there is no doubt that it is right that they are there. We keep these commitments under review and always assess them against routine programmed activities, and, where necessary, make adjustments to ensure the necessary balance between operations and other tasks.
	It is worth remembering that the Royal Marines were first put at high readiness for operations in Afghanistan in late October last year, and 45 Commando have been at high readinesssome on board HMS Ocean and others at home in Arbroathsince mid-November. We have therefore been ready for an operation of this sort for some months. There is no overstretch.
	There have also been questions and concerns about the command and control arrangements in place for 45 Commando Group. It is entirely separate from the international security assistance force and will have separate command and control arrangements. ISAF comes under national command, although US Centcom has responsibility for ensuring that there is no conflict between ISAF activities and those that continue as part of Operation Enduring Freedom; 45 Commando Group come directly under Centcom's command. Brigadier Roger Lane and the headquarters of 3 Commando Brigade will therefore be embedded in the American-led coalition headquarters at Bagram. That means that the ISAF commander, Major General McColl, will not have authority over 45 Commando Group. In turn, Brigadier Lane will not have command over ISAF. They command distinct forces with distinct jobs to do in discrete parts of Afghanistan. Other nations which have contributed troops to ISAF are in exactly the same situation. It will not have escaped the notice of the House that Denmark, France, Germany, and Norway have all sent ground forces to participate in Operation Anaconda, while other elements of their armed forces remain in Kabul under General McColl.
	Our decision to deploy 45 Commando Group to Afghanistan was not taken lightly. However, it is the right decision. The remaining al-Qaeda and Taliban elements must be dealt with. We shall continue to pursue them until the job is done. We must complete the task in full. The events of 11 September have shown us what could happen if we do not.
	That is why I am not prepared to put a precise date on when we will bring these troops back home. Clearly, the decision will be taken in the light of the circumstances on the ground and in the light of the tasks that these troops may undertake. Our exit strategy is that we will leave when the task is completed. I welcome the fact that there is so much support in the House for this deployment and widespread appreciation of why it is so necessary.

Several hon. Members: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Menzies Campbell: I apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), who is unavoidably absent. I shall allow myself the indulgence of the following thought. Whatever our views on huntingI accept that there are very strong views on both sides of the Houseit is a relief that this week we have found time, however it was achieved, for a debate on the deployment of so many of our armed forces. Had we not, I suspect that people looking at the House of Commons from outside would have wondered precisely where our priorities lay.
	I believe that the Government are entitled to the support of the House for this deployment. More particularly, our service men are entitled to that support. They are being asked to undertake hazardous operations in conditions that are unimaginably inhospitablea long way from the air-conditioned comfort of this Chamber. Just as the Government are entitled to our support, the House, too, is entitled to clear military and political explanations from the Government for this deployment.
	The truth is that the decision to make this fresh deployment is tactical, not strategic. The strategic decision has already been taken. It was taken in the immediate aftermath of 11 September, when, by common consent, the House agreed that military force should be used in Afghanistan to achieve four stated objectives. The first was to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. The second was to disrupt and destroy as far as possible al-Qaeda's network of terrorism. The third was to drive the Taliban Government out of Kabul. The fourth was to allow the people of Afghanistan to have the chance to choose their own Government. At this date, only the third of those objectives has been achieved.
	If the deployment or the decision to make it had been announced before Christmas, I doubt whether there would have been any concern other than from those who honourably and sincerely oppose the use of force in principle in Afghanistan. What is different today is, first, the speed of response to the request from the United States, which, as the Secretary of State has just told us, came formally on Friday last week. It was so recent that the Government could not offer the usual consultation on Privy Council terms with other parties in the House. Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, a perception had grown up here and elsewhere that we had enjoyed early and comprehensive military success, and, consequently, all that was left to do was some form of mopping upa description of military action that is as factually inaccurate as it is militarily inept.
	Those who joined the chorus of I told you so may now wish to reflect at leisure on the American expression, It isn't over until it's over. Perhaps unconsciously, that principle lay behind the observations of which I understand the Secretary of State has given further explanation today, and on which he has been reported as saying that this may be an open ended commitment. In that regard, I agree with an intervention by, I think, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). The truth is that, in the war against terrorism, the commitment is always open ended. That is particularly the case, if, as we now know, the terrorist uses the principles of what is described as asymmetric warfarenever risking full-blooded confrontation. The truth is that in a campaign against terrorism, it may be virtually impossible to answer the question, How do you know when you've won? If one looks for a classical allusion, the mythology of the dragon's teeth comes easily to mind.
	It is axiomatic that military force should not be used unless clear political objectives can be achieved. In modern military thinking, however, it is increasingly accepted that just as intervention must be justified against clear criteria, such intervention must also be accompanied by an equally clear exit strategy. There must be a point at which one concludes that one's objectives have been achieved, ormore difficult, and often more important and acutea point at which one concludes that one's objectives cannot be achieved and that withdrawal is the necessary response. We have not yet heardnor, I suspect, could the Secretary of State provideclear exit criteria of that kind. However, a point must surely arise in the conduct of the operations that he has described in which the need for such criteria will be paramount. Although the House takes him on trustI shall return to that pointwe are entitled to say that we expect him to be sufficiently rigorous in his supervision of these operations to be alive to the need for clear exit criteria of the kind that I have described.
	We must also recognise that we are sending highly specialised troops into circumstances that are admitted to be of very considerable danger. The Secretary of State was rightly sombre in his statement to the House on Monday when he described the nature of the risk. We are sending troops against the background of an uncertain immediate history, whichnotwithstanding what he has just saidmay be capable of explanation only by accepting that the United States troops previously engaged have, in truth, bitten off more than they could chew both physically and tactically. That seems to underline the risk to which we are inevitably exposing those whom we now wish to deploy.
	All of us who support military actionand I mean all of us and not just the Governmenthave an overwhelming moral obligation not to exploit the competence, bravery and professionalism of our troops. I therefore, wish to make a point in parenthesis. Reservations have been and will be expressed by others in the debate. However, if we were American senators or members of the House of the Representatives and the circumstances were reversed, there could be no doubt that we would all raise the same issues on behalf of those whom we represented as matters of principle.
	There is nothing disloyal in wanting to put to the test a Government who face the awesome responsibility of making such deployments or in forcing that Government to come to the Chamber of the House of Commons to justify their actions. Indeed, it is my recollection that precisely the same principles applied during the Gulf war, Kosovo and in other similar engagements.
	This deployment is perforce a very public one. The Secretary of State was quick to dismiss any reservations that Members might have about two different deployments. However, I suggest that, although we might be clear about the separation between ISAF and 45 Commando and the roles for which they are being deployed, the distinction may be less obvious to those with malign intent. Indeed, they may positively ignore it. In an age of asymmetric warfare, we are dealing with a terrorist organisation whose sophistication is warranted each time we come across the places where it keeps a cache of manuals or equipment, so I postulate whether it is impossible that someone will say, Well, we won't take on the British uniforms of 45 Commando in the mountains. We may find it rather easier to target the British uniforms of the Royal Anglians in Kabul. There is some justification for the view that there may be an increased risk to the forces in Kabul.
	I had the good fortune to visit Kabul a few weeks ago at the invitation of the Foreign Secretary. On these occasions, it is conventional to talk with pride of the achievements of British forces. Sometimes we do that as a matter of ritual rather than of substance, but I genuinely felt a swelling of pride at the quality and competence of those who were wearing the Union Jack. That competence has been built up in operations such as ISAF, but is based to a large extent on our pretty horrific experiences over 30 years in Northern Ireland. Such operations form as important a part of the range of abilities of British armed forces as does the most high-intensity war fighting.
	There are risks in concentrating on operations such ISAF, because our capacity for high-intensity war fighting may be irremediably eroded. I think that that has been the experience of the Canadians, but I have no doubt that we possess a capacity as a result of our experiences in Northern Ireland that is vital in many circumstances. We should never attempt to describe that capacity in such a way as to cause people to think that it is something second rate.
	The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) asked about the porous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. There is at least anecdotal evidence to suggest that the border has been freely crossed by elements of al-Qaeda who have gone for rest and recreation in Pakistan. They have regrouped and, with fresh men and material, returned to Afghanistan. I suspect that that pattern may be repeated for a considerable time and, if it is, the length of the commitment to which the Secretary of State referred will be greater. Those of us who support this deployment should not do so without recognising what the consequences might be.

Crispin Blunt: When the Secretary of State replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), I thought that he missed the point. The issue is what Pakistani forces will do within the borders of Pakistan to ensure that a safe haven for al-Qaeda is not created there. It is impossible to make the border impenetrable.

Menzies Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is right. What might in other circumstances might be described as host-nation support by elements of the Pakistani armed forces could make al-Qaeda's opportunities for reinforcement all the greater. I acknowledge that point and if it happensit is not unreasonable to assume that it mightit will have consequences for the nature and length of the commitment into which we may enter.

Jon Owen Jones: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Menzies Campbell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I wish to make progress. I know that many other Members wish to speak. Although I am not subject to the 10-minute rule, I do not want to abuse my position.
	There is no greater political or moral responsibility for any Government than to commit forces to combat in which their lives are at risk. By endorsing the decisionas most of us in the Chamber dowe take unto ourselves a share of that responsibility. However, on this deployment as on so many decisions that the Government have taken since 11 September, it is necessary for the House and the country to take the Government on trust. I listened carefully to the Secretary of State and he said nothing this afternoon which in any way could prejudice the security or the operational effectiveness of the troops that we are about to deploy. I understand that. It would have been improper for him to have given away information that might have led to such consequences. However, in turn, that merely reinforces the fact that we have to take him and the whole Government on trust.
	A failure in this area could lead to seismic political consequences. Circumstances now are nothing like those in the first and second world wars, but students of history will remember that Asquith was replaced, as Chamberlain was 35 years later, because the House of Commons lacked confidence in the conduct of the war.
	I believe that the Government are entitled to our support, and so too are our forces. We have a duty both to Government and to the forces. However, the Government have a duty as well. They have a duty to the House of Commons and to the country to make sure that they get it right.

Bruce George: Events in Afghanistan may initially have appeared to vindicate proponents of air power. It seemed that one could win a war from 20,000 or 30,000 ft, but the events of the past few weeks have suggested that there is still a role for ground forces, and that wars cannot be won through the use of one branch of the armed forces alone.
	Those who thought that the conflict was winding down to a quiet termination were truly naive or stupid beyond words. Even in December, before the conflict had reached its current state, the Defence Committee said:
	Whatever the outcome of the present action in Afghanistan or the fate of Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda, we cannot expect to neutralize the new threats easily or quickly . . . This is not to say that the battle against global terrorism cannot be won; it can be and it must be. But it will not be won quickly, and it is likely that whatever success is achieved against al Qaeda itself, a number of groups associated with it or sympathetic to its causes will continue to pose a threat.
	Perhaps it was thought that the first stage of the battle in Afghanistan had been won, but it has not. I am afraid that those who think that we can get back to normal in one month, two months, six months or a year will be disappointed.
	I recently read a wonderful book, entitled War Without End, which is dedicated to the subject of terrorism. We live in an era in which the war against terrorism will be an almost perennial feature of our existence. Regrettably, we will have to operate in many theatres, although hopefully not all.

Edward Garnier: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Bruce George: I am sorry, but I have only eight minutes left.
	I agree with much of what the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said, but I am not sure that it is wise to talk publicly about an exit strategy only a few months after establishing an entry strategy. To do so would give potential adversaries an advantage in calculating how to deal with the threat.
	I give the Government my near-unequivocal support, and I am not going to list a host of provisos. The Government's actions during this crisis have been quite correct, and most people in the House and outside it endorse what they are doing. I certainly agree with current deployments, but the additional forces will have a rather different task.
	The Opposition's support is very welcome, and any differences that emerged were largely marginal. However, those of us who support deployment in the war against terrorism will continue to be accused of warmongering and imperialismI was accused on the radio of being slightly racistand of being stupid for not realising what others have realised. Of course, Islamicists will not be too pleased either.
	I do not denigrate those who argue differently from the majority of Members, but in my view what the Government have done and are doing is absolutely correct in every sensemorally, politically and in terms of international law. Some will find the deployment of the Royal Marines rather surprising. Perhaps it was a surprise, but they have been operating in the Indian ocean for the past six months. They are not there simply to get a bit of a sea breeze. It seemed pretty obvious to me and many others that the Americans would request their presence at some stageand not just for the peacekeeping operation in Kabul. To put it modestly, they are the among the best armed forces in the world; to put it correctly, they are the best armed forces in the world.
	The call did indeed come. Last October, 40 Commando were on stand-by on board HMS Fearless, in the Arabian sea. They were then sent to Bagram. More recently, 45 Commando were on stand-by on board HMS Ocean. So the deployment of the Royal Marines was not a complete surprise. Nor was it a complete surprise that the conflict in Afghanistan did not have the perfect ending that we associate with major American films, in which everything happens as one would wish. I suspect, however, that those who said that the conflict was coming to an end were addressing their domestic audience, and will live to be rather embarrassed by their statements.
	The idea that there was any alternative to what the Government are doing is rather fanciful. If the Government had accepted the argument of some Labour Members that we should not have participated in the operation, what message would that have sent to other special forces, our own public, the Americans, the Germans and other countriesincluding the Canadians, for whom such an operation is spectacularthat are participating alongside the United States? It would have sent the message that the United Kingdom was not prepared to join them because it was fearful of the consequencesthat its troops would be exposed to risks and that the war might last a long time. If the Government were unwise enough to follow that line of argument, we could do without a Ministry of Defence, because the future deployment of troops in the national and international interest would be unlikely.
	Of course there are risks, as the Secretary of State made clear. One cannot fight a very capable but non-professional al-Qaeda force in a home territory consisting of caves, and at an elevation of 10,000 ft, without the aid of tanks such as Challenger 1 and 2. Lives may well be lost, perhaps even those of our adversaries. On embarking on such a task, one has to be realistic and not assume that the light casualties of the past 30 or 40 years constitute a virtual right or a scientific law.
	The point made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), which some Members mocked, is a serious one. Dual and contrasting roles will pose problems. The roles of peacekeeper and of fighter may not be totally incompatible, but it could prove exceedingly difficult to persuade people that a demarcation has been drawn between two unique operations.
	Yes, there may be mission creep, but I doubt whether the conflict will turn into another Vietnam, as Afghanistan's Interim Administration will have greater legitimacy. It is vitally important that, in conjunction with the Interim Administration's national guard, we put considerable effort into training indigenous forces, as we have done in Sierra Leone. Such forces are best able to fight al-Qaedaif necessaryfor an indefinite period, and they have the greatest legitimacy. It is wrong, however, to assume that our operation will come to a swift end.
	The Government did not decline the United States' request. Threats and risks do exist, but those of my hon. Friends who think that we should not have undertaken this task are in essence saying, Countries such as Russia, Uzbekistan and Pakistan can take a risk, but Britain must be risk-free. The boys can come home unscathed, with no adverse consequences to their, or this House's, reputation.
	I should tell those of my colleagues who are devotees of the Labour party and its history that it has been an internationalist party throughout its existence. The idea that socialism ends at the borders of Europe is mistaken. We have commitments to help Governments in other parts of the world, however far from our shores. During Operation Saif Sareea, the Defence Committee met several Royal Marines. We saw them climbing mountains. They frightened us, and I am sure that they will have an adverse effect

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman's 10 minutes are up.

Michael Portillo: As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) commented, it is an awesome responsibility to commit our forces in this way. This is a situation of grave danger and the Secretary of State has taken a great responsibility upon himself. He has been much in my thoughts during these days. Even more in my thoughts have been the Royal Marines who are being committed and their families.
	I very much support the mission to which the Secretary of State has committed those forces. Because of that, it is highly regrettable that at first he sought to give the House no opportunity to have a debate. It is unfortunate that he had to be forced into having a debate, because that leaves him looking shifty and lacking in confidence at the very time when we need him to appear sure-footed and confident. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) dealt with the issue of the discourtesy to the House, but when our soldiers are being put into such extreme danger, it is a grave discourtesy to them to suggest that the sacrifice that they offer the nation is not worth three hours of debate in Government time. It is marvellous to have the opportunity this afternoon for so many Members of Parliament to express their commitment to our forces and their support for the decision that the Government have taken.

Geoff Hoon: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that the Government did not oppose this debate in any way, shape or form.

Michael Portillo: None the less, the Secretary of State will accept that he did not give the House the opportunity of a debate and it would have been better if he had. However, I commend him on his performance today, when he did appear sure-footed and confident. That is what we all expect from him if he is to lead us through these difficult days.
	This is not an American war. It is a war of many allies, in which we have committed ourselves to defeat terrorism. We did not commit ourselves for the short term or say that we would be committed to defeating terrorism for as long as it remained easy; we said that we were committed to that objective until we had achieved it. I remember that our first thought was that the campaign would be very difficult. Subsequently, it appeared to be easier than people had anticipated, but I agree with the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) when he said that those who thought that that was how it would turn out were deluding themselves. The situation that we now face in Afghanistan is the one that we first anticipated: we would face tough resistance, with the terrain against us; it would be a hard struggle; and we would have to be willing to bear casualties.
	This is no time to flinch. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife referred to the decision to commit the Royal Marines as a tactical decision in support of a strategic decision that had already been taken. He is right in that, but thank goodness that tactical decision has been taken, because it demonstrates resolve. If we failed to take that decision, the terrorists would not lose much time in regrouping, as the Secretary of State pointed out. If they were to do so, they would pose a major threat to the rest of Afghanistan, neighbouring countries and countries throughout the world. More than that, the fact that they were left intact and undefeated would be a major encouragement to extremists and militants all over the world. Therefore, their defeat remains a critical strategic objective.
	I would go further and say that the attacks on New York city and Washington were a test for western society on whether it was willing to defend the values of a free society. The background to the attacks on 11 September was not, as many people have alleged, a decade in which the United States had shown an overbearing and arrogant foreign policy towards the rest of the world. I take the opposite view. The decade that preceded 11 September was one in which people had become unclear about the resolve of the United States and, therefore, the resolve of the allies.
	First came the failure to topple Saddam during the Gulf war, for reasons that we all understand, which was taken as a sign of irresolution. Then came the series of moral victories that Saddam was allowed to win, including continuing with his programme of weapons of mass destruction and his decision to expel the United Nations inspectors without any satisfactory response from the allies. Perhaps most extraordinary were the attacks on the US embassies in Africa and the attack on USS Cole, which met with a perfunctory response from the US.
	I regret to sayand many of my hon. Friends will not like me saying thisthat even the September 2000 proposals by President Clinton and Prime Minister Barak, with major concessions proposed by Israel under the United States' umbrella, were taken by enemies as a sign of weakness[Interruption.] They may have been good proposals in themselves, but my point concerns how they were interpreted.
	Since 11 September, the US response to terrorism has been extraordinarily clear. The response of the UK Government has also been clear. It has not been completely consistent, but it has been consistent at the major points of decision. Like the right hon. Member for Walsall, South, I find it surprising that elements in the press and on the Labour Back Benches would now wish to give a less clear-cut answer to terrorism. That would put us in a great deal of danger. We are committed to the struggle and it is important that we demonstrate resolve.
	Perhaps most important of all in the perception of the terrorists who took advantage of western society on 11 September was the perception that the US would be unwilling to sustain any casualties in combat. In New York city on that day, there were 3,000 casualties. The US has turned over a new leaf in that respect and is now willing to face the prospect of casualties in order to defend its society and its way of life.
	Let me now comment directly on this deployment. The forces that the Secretary of State has chosen to send appear to be well constructed, robust and capable of defending themselves. The number and range of capabilities also appear to have been well chosen. We are contributing some capabilities that the US does not have, including, in particular, units that are able to locate mortars more effectively. Mortars represent a formidable weapon in this campaign. Let us also remember that UK staff are fully integrated into the battle staff in Tampa, which is an extraordinarily privileged and important position for this country to enjoy.
	During the past few months, I get the feeling that some commentators have learned a few pieces of random terminology about military affairs, including phrases such as mission creep and exit strategy. Sometimes those phrases are applied without sufficient thought being given to whether they are appropriate. I agree with the Secretary of State when he says that the mission is to defeat terrorism and that when Afghanistan has been secured and the mission completed, that will be the time to leave and that is the exit strategy. In war, there is little else to be said, and I am pleased that so many right hon. and hon. Members have made that point during this debate.
	Last night I and several other hon. Members had the privilege of attending a dinner to honour those who had earned Victoria Crosses in the past, in the presence of the widow of Colonel H. Jones and a couple of Victoria Cross winners from the second world war. I am convinced that the people who are now being sent to Afghanistan are capable of showing the same bravery, courage and valour and of making the same sacrifice. The people we are sending are lions and, I am pleased to say, they are not led by donkeys, as it is alleged once happened in our history. These lions are also commanded by lions. All I would say to the Government, as they make this difficult decision and see it properly debated in the House, is that my wish for those fine people whom we are sending to Afghanistan is that they may always receive from their political masters the respect and consideration that they so richly deserve.

Doug Henderson: Three or four years ago, I spent three or four days in northern Norway with 45 Commando. whom I hold in the highest regard. I saw at first hand their dedication, motivation, skills and professionalism.
	This deployment is a major deployment by comparison with anything in recent times. Lives are at risk, as the Secretary of State said in his statement on Monday, and I believe that we owe it to those soldiers to display clear thinking in the House and provide an opportunity for debate on the issues that affect them.
	It is always said that in military action two tests must be satisfied. First, there must be a just cause; secondly, there must be a reasonable chance of success. When we discussed these issues six months ago in the House, many colleagues addressed those tests. There is a danger that one begins to forget the tests as the campaign develops. If we are to have credibility as a House, we must subject the campaign to those tests as it develops, because public opinion will be taking note of what happens.
	There was clearly support among the British people for intervention although, as opinion polls showed, there were differences of view as to how that intervention could best take place. The danger is that if we are deflected from continually testing on the just cause and on the best way forward and the likelihood of success, we are likely to begin to lose public support. One thing that will very much influence public opinion in this country and in the United States is the extent to which our forces, and the politics that underpin our forces, are perceived in the theatre as forces that are acting for the good of the people there.
	My first concern today is that because of the dual rolethe peacekeeping role and the offensive rolethere is a danger that local support in Afghanistan, and the other Islamic parts of the world that will identify with Afghanistan, may begin to doubt whether a just cause is being pursued.
	The subject of American contributions to peacekeeping forces was aired in the House earlier today. I cannot understand why it is acceptable or appropriate for Britain to be involved in a dual role in Afghanistan yet it is not acceptable for the other major player, the United States, to be involved in a dual role. The United States might argue that Denmark and Germany are involved in a minor way in a dual role, but that is a very different situation because people in the streets of Kabul and elsewhere probably will not know that Denmark or the Czech Republic, for instance, are involved but they will know that the Americans and the British are involved. It is somewhat unwise to have that dual roleI do not understand why it is right for the United Kingdom to undertake that dual role, but it is apparently not right for the United States to accept that role.
	My second worry is linked to the previous one. We have heard, and I read in the press, about the support that the different contributors to the provisional Government in Afghanistan give to those who are helping them establish the process of law and order in that country. Collectively they undoubtedly support the involvement, although they may have different motives and factional fights are still taking place.
	Although I do not have access to the intelligence reports that Ministers have, I am not convinced from the reports that I read that support on the ground in Afghanistan is as strong as the support among the political factions. That problem could be aggravated if people on the ground in Afghanistan see British soldiers in two different capacities. As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said, some opponents in Afghanistan might fancy a pop at a peacekeeper whereas they would not fancy a pop at a Royal Marine up in the mountains.
	I have only 10 minutes in which to speak, so I shall be brief. My third point relates to the test of whether there is a reasonable chance of success. It is not good enough to apply that test only at the start of a campaign; it must be applied throughout. I agree with the hon. Member who said that we are talking not about strategy but about tactics. We have had our arguments about the strategy, but on tactics, is the next tactic that we are deploying consistent with the original criteria that we laid down as necessary for a degree of success?
	There are many unknowns in this issue. I recognise that Ministers have a difficult task, as they may have access to information that it would be unwise to share with the House or the public because it would give knowledge to our enemies. However, there is a real danger that we may get bogged down in something that we cannot control in Afghanistan. That is a very serious worry.
	Some might say that we have already had offensive soldiers in Afghanistan, and peacekeepers over the past three or four months, but the number of offensive soldiers has been small. They have not been very visible and have probably not been known to the civilian populations in Afghanistan. However, when one starts introducing 1,700who, for all we know, may need to be reinforced by many thousands more for logistical or fighting reasonsit becomes obvious to the people in Afghanistan what is happening.
	The worry is that if law and order begin to break down, if the local population gradually cease to support those who are trying to keep peace and trying to rid us all of the threat of al-Qaeda, and if people begin to see that that is not happening, we could easily become involved in a civil war in which we are forced to choose, in any particular military situation, between backing one faction in the provisional Government and another. I read in the press that fighting is indeed taking place. If we have many soldiers in that theatre, we might have no choice but to take sides or to become involved in such a situation.
	It would be bad enough to get caught in a civil war; it would be tragic to get caught in an imperial war. The danger is that one transforms into the other very quickly. What starts as a battle between factions in Afghanistan could easily end up as fighting between those from outside the country and those within the country, which would be perceived by the local population and by important Islamic-friendly states as a 21st century imperial intervention by a number of countries that were tied together in the coalition.
	There is that grey area between an intervention with a specific purpose, a clear mission and a targeted operational structuresomething that is understandable, has local support and is recognised internationallyand something much bigger, that is perceived as an outside force, that has lost its way, that does not have local support and that gets bogged down in something that it does not want to become involved in, and cannot see an exit strategy for itself.
	Those are the dangers. I am not predicting that that will happen, but I will say that if hon. Members read the clear and detailed history of Vietnam, they will find that there are very many parallels with the way in which the numbers of American forces grew from a few thousand in 1965 or 1966 to 550,000 by 1970. I have no doubt that all were established initially as acting as a force for good. I do not expect Ministers to share all their information with the House, but there is a balance to be struck.

Peter Tapsell: I happened to be in New York on the morning of 11 September, and I remained in the United Statesbecause no one could get outfor the next seven days. I therefore have a clear picture in my mind of the force of American public opinion on that terrible tragedy and their continuing determination to get their revenge.
	Revenge is not a word that is often used in this context, but I have a great many American friends and I have been back to the United States since 11 September, and I can tell hon. Members that it animates their policy. They are determined to get revenge, and I have no doubt that they will do so. I fully support the United States in its desire to stamp out international terrorism. However, that is not to say that we should not, in our cool, British way, consider the situation as it develops and make quite certain that each step down the road is carefully chosen.
	There is a great danger in using the broad brush. People talk about those who are fighting in Afghanistanthe Taliban, al-Qaeda and the third group, who might be described as tribal gangstersas though they were all the same sorts of people, but they are entirely different. I know Afghanistan fairly well. Indeed, I have my father's 1919 Afghan medal, my grandfather fought in the second Afghan war and I grew up in a house full of Afghan carpets, daggers, pistols and so on.
	The last time I was in Kabul was a few weeks before the Russians invaded. They stayed in Afghanistan for 10 years, put in 300,000 troops and left 30,000 dead behind them. Those are useful statistics to bear in mind when talking about sending 1,700 immensely gallant and highly trained Royal Marines into the snow-clad mountains of eastern Afghanistan. I have walked in those mountainsalthough not very high up, and certainly not when there was snow aroundand it would be impossible to use armoured vehicles on those tracks, which one can hardly get mules up and down. As we all remember, by the time the Russians left Afghanistan the whole country was littered with burned-out Russian tanks. The nature of the challenge should not be underestimated.
	The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) mentioned Vietnam. I visited Vietnam three times during the war. The first time I went, there were 300 American advisers in civilian clothing. The last time I went there were 500,000 American troops in uniform. During that visit, General Westmoreland, the great US commander of the day, assured me that the war would be over by Christmas. It is always worth remembering the difficulties that have arisen in the past as a result of intervening in such situations.
	The Afghans have been fighting each other all through history. In reality, there is no such place as Afghanistan. Until the late 19th century, it was simply called the Afghan region. A British civil servant called Sir Mortimer Durand drew a line on the map and said that that was going to be the frontier between the then India and Afghanistan. People use the extraordinary phrase a porous frontier to describe the area. They have heard only of the Khyber pass, up which I have driven from Peshawar to Kabul on three occasions, but I am told that there are approximately 200 passes on the 900-mile frontier between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The tribesmen can move backwards and forwards with total freedom, as the Secretary of State admitted.
	Although each war is different, I should like to make another historical reference. When a Conservative Government put one battalion into Bosnia, I asked the then Foreign Secretary, What is the use of sending one battalion when you need four divisions to do the job? The Serbs capitulated only when four divisions were in Macedonia on the frontier of Kosovo. We should therefore understand that sending in the magnificent Marine Commandos will not end civil war in Afghanistan, which will go on for decades in different forms, as it always has done.
	We must consider the importance of the war in the wider world context. Although the attack on the twin towers and the terrible suffering and grief that it caused in America were appalling, if we are to consider the matter objectively we must study our enemy. It was a brilliantly organised terrorist strike. Anyone who has tried to organise a cheese and wine party for a Conservative association will appreciate the difficulty of getting the sandwiches there on time. The attack must have been one of the best organised operations in modern history.
	One of the most amazing aspects was that the strike obviously took years of preparation but was never leaked. I have spoken to Congressmen and Senators about the matter, and they have expressed great anger that the American secret service did not see it coming. A congressional committee of inquiry is currently examining that. Only yesterday, the director of the FBI said in answer to the committee that al-Qaeda was reorganising and regrouping in approximately 34 countries.
	The problem is not only in the caves in the mountains of Afghanistan. I have never had great faith in what might be described as troglodyte technology. I simply do not believe that the attack on the twin towers was organised in detail from the caves. We know that no Afghans were involved in the actual attack, which was carried out almost entirely by Egyptians and Saudis who had been in the United States for a long time. They had tremendous technological training for the job. We should acknowledge that although a genuine danger of future terrorist attacks exists, not only in the United States but possibly in Britain, the people who will launch them are almost certainly in the US and Britain now, not fighting in the snow of the Afghan mountains.
	We need a much more sophisticated approach to the subject than the media, at least, present. I should like to believe that the US has worked that out, that it recognises the fact that 1 billion people in the world are Muslim and that the whole Arab world has been antagonised by our actions. We must tackle the macro-strategic as well as the micro-tactical problem.
	I devoutly hope that our Royal Marines can carry out their duties with minimum casualties, but I am not confident that their numbers will be sufficient to do that. We will therefore have to face the choice of greatly increasing their numbers through large-scale reinforcements or withdrawing them and concentrating on the much greater threat from Iraq.

Alan Simpson: I commend the speeches of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson). The House may well choose to reflect carefully on the analysis provided by the former and the cautionary wisdom and ministerial experience offered by the latter.
	The views I shall express stem from the very first announcement made to the House by the Secretary of State on Monday, in which he said
	The United States has now formally requested that the UK provides forces to join in future military operations against other remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban elsewhere in Afghanistan.[Official Report, 18 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 38.]
	It is important to separate what we know from what we do not know. We know that 1,700 troops are currently committed by the United Kingdom to join forces from the United States. We know that those troops will be de facto under the control of the United States. What we do not know is how long they will be there, and for what purposes.
	It worried me that the Secretary of State described the move as chasing the remnants of al-Qaeda. What do we mean by remnants? Estimates of the number vary from 2,000 to 20,000. On 19 December last year, the Washington Post quoted an FBI analysis according to which the sum of military achievements was, at best, the limiting of al-Qaeda's capacity by about 30 per cent. If that is the case, we are sending our troops to face very sizeable remnants.
	We do not know how long the troops will be there. Will they be there for 10 weeks, 10 months, 10 years? An ominous piece of string is being dangled before us, whose end we cannot see. We do not know what is the military endgame for the deployment of the troops, and we do not know the exit strategy. My fear is that we, as a Parliament, are in danger of making a commitment which, without those clear objectives, would make it easy for us to send troops in and end up counting them out.
	We do know that Operation Anaconda was anything but a mopping-up exercise. We also knowthanks to, in particular, the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and discussions between the NATO delegation from the United Kingdom with Russian delegationsthat the issue never concerned an initial military success over Afghanistan. The Russians have repeatedly pointed out to our delegation that they took over the country in six weeks. The fact is that 10 years later, minus 30,000 of the troops they had sent in, they were forced to crawl out of a country whose terrain and fighters had defeated them.
	It is important for the House to consider our responsibilities with real caution before we send British troops into potentially similar conditions. We need a clear mission statement, and we need to be clear about its limits. We also need to remember that this deployment, the largest deployment of UK fighting troops since the Gulf war deployment in 1991, is to a region where we were told before Christmas the war had ended. Our troops are being sent to a place where, in fact, the fighting has far from ended.
	After 11 September many of us had real disagreements about the tactics of pursuing this war, but a number of us did not disagree about whether we should pursue Osama bin Laden or whether we should pursue and seek to dismantle the al-Qaeda network; we disagreed about the tactics and the prospects of success involved in taking such action by conventional military means.
	Personally, I still favour the use of specialist troops to bring out, or take out, Osama bin Laden, but at this stage we do not know whether the troops we are sending have any idea whether they are pursuing bin Laden or his shadows. We have no real doubts now about the threat posed by the al-Qaeda network, but I think the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) was right to say that it is not to be found in the caves outside Kabul. The next set of terrorist threats, like the last set, are being planned in comfortable apartments outside the region rather than in caves outside the capital.
	We must at some point acknowledge that one of the first casualties of our continuing down a route driven entirely by military presumptions was the death of diplomacy, and of the UN's role in pursuing non-military solutions to what is legitimately described as an asymmetrical threat to the stability of societies. I do not want to retreat from, or understate, the nature or size of that threat, but I question the wisdom and the presumption that there are conventional military solutions, and I specifically question whether those solutions will be found in the Afghan mountains.
	Many Members wish to express legitimate fears that we are in danger of fighting the right war, or maybe struggle, in the wrong way. There is an additional danger, mentioned by some Members today, of our encouraging a form of mission creep that may begin in Kabul but end in Baghdad. That would not bring peace to a region or country, but would add massively to the sense of instability, threat and risk felt by all of us.
	The House should issue legitimate warnings, and assert the right to ask questions about the implications of this action, its limits and its constraints. The stability of the region, the safety of our troops and the interests of the international community demand a clearer and more coherent mandate for the military action being embarked on, and a stronger likelihood of the success test mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North. It cannot be right for us to deploy UK fighting forces simply on the basis of a whistle and a wink from the American Administration. That is unlikely to be a winnable strategy, given the much more complex threat that the world currently faces.

Hugo Swire: Despite having served in the armed forces, I make no great claim to be a military strategist, but I feel qualified to make some observations, having spent considerable time on the Afghan border in the 1980s during the Soviet occupation. I have first-hand knowledge of some of the terrain so graphically brought to life by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell). Perhaps more relevant is the fact that Commando Training Centre Lympstone, the spiritual and in some cases actual home of the Royal Marines, is in my constituency.
	As we have heard today, the Royal Marines are already doing more than their fair share in this conflict. The deployment of the remaining elements of 45 Commando and the combat and services support elements is the largest military deployment since the Gulf war. As we know and have heard again today, the lead elements of 45 Commando, its headquarters company and Whisky and Zulu companies are already in theatre on HMS Ocean.
	Personally, I can think of no better force to send to that theatre to back up the more specialist forces already there than the Royal Marines. They are tough; they are highly professional; they have done extensive mountains training; and they are certainly battle fit. However, we should not for one moment delude ourselves into thinking that what they are undertaking will be like an exercise on Woodbury common with live rounds. It will not. It would be unrealistic to imagine that, out of an additional force of some 1,700 men, there will be no casualties. There will be. Nothing short of a miracle can prevent that. Given that, it is crucial that we know exactly what we are asking them to do.
	Some Labour Members are concerned that the latest deployment represents mission creep. It may, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) said, Labour Members' comments serve only to highlight their ignorance of matters military. In a theatre of warbasically an anti-terrorist warthere is bound to be an element of mission creep due to the ever-changing nature of the conflict. However, that does not mean that the basic objectives need to change.
	Paragraph 4 of the Government's aims, as outlined in their original campaign objectives, states:
	The immediate objectives will be achieved by all available means, including both political and military . . . unless the Taliban regime complies with the US ultimatum, taking direct action against Usama bin Laden, the Al Qa'ida networks and the terrorist facilities in Afghanistan, and where necessary taking political and military action to fragment the present Taliban regime, including through support for Pushtun groups opposed to the regime as well as forces in the Northern Alliance.
	Events have obviously moved on since then. The Taliban did not comply, and in my view there has been a singular failure to support the most effective Pashtun forces. Incidentally, it is exactly that failure which has led to the continuing resistance by some of the recalcitrant elements of the Taliban.
	The aims, though broadly the same, have changed slightly. It is now a stated aim to find and bring to justice Mullah Omar as well as Osama bin Laden. It is my suspicion that bin Laden has long since departed Afghanistan and is almost certainly elsewherein Chechnya or even Algeria. Mullah Omar may or may not still be within the national bordersthe 250,000-odd square miles that constitute Afghanistan, but we know that large remaining elements of al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters are. What if some are not? What if, as is believed, there are elements in neighbouring Baluchistan, the North-West Frontier province or even Kashmir? What will the orders to our troops be then?
	To my way of thinking, something has already gone slightly wrong with the campaign. I suspect that it is a failure of operational intelligence. I suspect that the number of al-Qaeda fighters killed was overestimated, and the remaining number still alive and willing to fight underestimated.
	We know that the Americans have encountered much heavier fighting than they had anticipated during Operation Anaconda. We do not know accurately what casualties they have suffered to date. While I, like other right hon. and hon. Members, applaud the work of the US 10th Mountain Division, it is clear that elements are battle-wearyhence the request for assistance from the Royal Marines.
	I believe that it is right that we have responded positively to that request, but given the history of British and even Soviet involvement in Afghanistan, we need to bear in mind an exit strategy. For how long should we be prepared to be there? Clearly, until we have finished the job.
	Only yesterday, CIA director George Tenet stated in evidence to the Senate armed services committee:
	you're entering into another phase here, that actually is more difficult because you are probably looking at smaller units who intend to really operate against you in classic insurgency format.
	It is obvious that the United States is nervous about being drawn into a protracted guerrilla war in Afghanistan. History shows that it has every right to be but it must not be up to Britain to fill the vacuum in the event of America's attentions being diverted to new theatres.
	It is not an easy time for the Secretary of State for Defence or indeed the Government to commit British forces to front-line combat operations. As we have heard again and again in speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House this afternoon, we have the finest, most professional forces in the world. We know that they will do whatever it is they are asked to do. That is their duty, just as it is our duty as politicians to support their endeavours; to make certain that the task set for them by the Government is achievable; that they have all the necessary back-up and equipment they need; that their orders and aims are made crystal clear; and that their families and loved ones left behind are properly taken care of. We know that they will not let us down. We in turn must play our part in supporting them to the fullest.

Jim Knight: I join other hon. Members from both sides of the House in welcoming the deployment of 45 Commando and their support element in Afghanistan.
	There is little pleasure, I am sure, in sending service personnel into highly dangerous combat, but there must also be great pride that British armed forces are found to be the best for the job, and it is right that we should play a full part in finishing off what we started in standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States after 11 September, which has already achieved the ending of the Taliban regime and of a safe haven for al-Qaeda.
	It has already been shown that UK armed forces are uniquely skilled in peacekeeping. We have highly skilled troops deployed all over the world, most recently to great effect in Operation Essential Harvest in Macedonia, and now in commanding the international security assistance force in Afghanistan. Others are increasing their capability in that growing area of work but I believe that the UK is still uniquely respected in that role. That is a dangerous job, albeit perhaps not a popular or glamorous one, and I pay great tribute to the troops currently deployed in Kabul. I am delighted that the ISAF headquarters is being handed over to the Germans, as was successfully done in Macedonia. I will come back to the handover of the command of ISAF later.
	It is surely a great compliment that the United States, the supremely equipped military power in the world, which on the face of it does not need us, has called on us for the very difficult and dangerous remaining mission in Afghanistan. It is not just our peacekeeping capability that deserves great pride.
	I again pay tribute to our armed forces. I was fortunate enough to meet members of Whisky company in Oman, one of the companies in 45 Commando. The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) described them as
	the finest body of men that we are ever likely to deploy overseas.[Official Report, 18 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 47.]
	I do not have the colonel's expertise but they seemed very tough, very keen and very professional to me. Incidentally, they were also successfully using the first roll-outs of the Bowman communications system when I saw them in Oman. I know that, waiting in the less than perfect conditions aboard HMS Ocean, they will be eager to do the job they are trained to do as part of the deployment. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) that they are specialist troops ideal for removing the threat that remains in the scattered parts of the country.
	The pride that I have in our armed forces is matched by a pride in the work of the Department for International Development in so often leading the world on debt relief, poverty eradication and emergency response, and pride in our foreign policy which projects a balanced and just response to events around the world. Our credible military and humanitarian force is matched by our diplomatic skill, but questions do remain and I welcome this opportunity to raise them.
	The capability to which I have paid tribute is remarkable and we achieve great value for money, but we are right up against limits of capacity. Yesterday, with other members of the Select Committee on Defence, I visited RAF Coningsby. It has no recruitment problem but retention is very difficult. The situation is starting to improve with the new retention package but there is no doubt that, particularly for support grades such as catering, continuous overseas deployment is damaging family life, and the strain is showing. There is a vicious circle: as another person leaves, it increases the strain on those who remain. I know from my constituency and from feedback I have had from Bovington that those in Coningsby and, indeed, in the RAF are not alone in that regard. I know that in broad terms the Army deployment is now at 1997 levels but I do not think that that is the full story when we look at individual grades and individual services within the armed forces as a whole.
	We are close to having to take some difficult decisions, which the deployment brings into full relief. I see only three options. First, to reduce our long-standing commitments: do we still need the current level of deployment in Northern Ireland or the Falklands? Secondly, we could make fewer new commitments and pool some capabilities with our European alliesthe former supported by the Opposition, the latter perhaps not. Like the Opposition, I cannot name what to cut, so I effectively discount the option of commitment cuts. Thirdly, we could continue to do more, but with more resources and more recruitment.
	My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary cannot comment on discussions with the Treasury, but I wish him well in securing the necessary extra money to go with the extra chapter of the strategic defence review, the option that I favour. We must continue the Government's upward trend on defence spending.
	I have some further questions. Will the Minister comment on a report from Reuters this morning on Vice-President Cheney's visit to Turkey? It states:
	'I think we're pretty close,' he said referring to talks with largely Muslim Turkey on leading the security force. 'They've agreed to consider the possibility.'
	Issues outstanding include financial support, how forces would be transported, communications and intelligence support.
	'I think there's general agreement that what we are talking about here for the ISAF is focused in and around Kabul. We're not talking about expanding it to other regions. The United States will clearly have to find ways to deal with problems that may arise in Mazar-i-Sharif . . . or Kandahar.'
	How close are we to agreement on Turkey's takeover, given that the list of outstanding issues in that quote from the Vice-President seems pretty major? What discussions have the Government had with the United States about dealing with problems that may arise outside Kabul? Is it likely, as the Vice-President suggested, that the force would be US-led, and under what mandate?
	Finally, will the Minister comment on the longer term? We are talking about a substantial level of deployment. Should our foreign policy require further ground operations, is there further capacity to do more in Afghanistan or elsewhere in the middle east? Do we need to scale back commitment elsewhere and increase capability in other sectors, such as special forces?
	In conclusion, I have made my support for the deployment in Afghanistan clear. I also support our foreign policy with accompanying commitments for the varied skills of our armed forces. I know that the new chapter of the strategic defence review will deal with many of my questions, but I would be grateful if the Minister responded to some of them today.

Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), whose remarks were informed and measured. He asked several questions and this debate provides the ideal forum for the Minister to respond. I am pleased that Mr. Speaker granted the Standing Order No. 24 emergency debate today, allowing the House the opportunity to present to the Government its views on the substantial deployment of troops in Afghanistan in a war situation. It is different from the position in Kabul where the international security assistance force is guaranteeing security, helping to ensure law and order and assisting the interim Government.
	I can only pray, as have other contributors to the debate, that the warlords, the Northern Alliance and the Pashtun forces can work together as part of the interim Government and bring permanent stability and peace to Afghanistan, depriving terrorist organisations of refuge in the country. Remaining elements of al-Qaeda and the Taliban are now fighting from caves in the eastern mountains of Afghanistan. I hope that the special forces that we are sending inthey are without reservation the best trained and most disciplined in the worldwill be successful in routing those elements. I make no bones about the need to remove them, because they are a danger to mankind and to the future stability and prosperity of Afghanistan.
	I said in an earlier intervention on the Secretary of State that I entirely endorse the Government's actions, as does my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). We are fully behind the deployment of 1,700 additional personnel to Afghanistan to carry out a job for which they are ideally trained and suited.
	In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell), I was in America on 11 September. I was not in New York on that date, but 60 hours before the two towers of the World Trade Centre were bombed by hijacked civilian aircraft, my wife my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton)myself and our second son who works in New York, just two and a half blocks from what was then the World Trade Centre, were on top of the south tower, so we felt close to the American people in what they experienced on 11 September.
	I would not go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle in saying that the American people are seeking revenge. What happened on that date was that, for the first time in history, American soil was invaded, so their attention was highly focused on the dangers of international terrorism. The world as a whole, after many decades of tolerating international terrorism, has realised that it is a scourge that needs to be eradicated.
	That can be done in many ways, but it is not the purpose of this debate to describe how to ensure that countries do not become a haven for terrorist organisations such as al-Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden. However, we can work in Afghanistan to narrow the scope for world terrorism to operate: it will be reduced, squeezed and reduced again. In the end, the evil that terrorists perpetrate will not be tolerated in any part of the world.
	I am one of the few Members on either side of the House who has served in Her Majesty's forcesin my case, not as a regular soldier, but as a national service soldier in the late 1950s. That experience has stayed with me ever since and was a wonderful teacher. Having served in the Army then and, two years ago, having participated in the armed forces parliamentary schemeI recommend it to all hon. Members as a worthwhile opportunityI have come to understand what motivates those who serve in the armed services.
	I sought an assurance from the Secretary of State earlier, when he was responding to my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex, that the Government would guarantee that all facilities, all resources and all equipment will be provided to our forces who are facing a war situation in Afghanistan. If we expect our soldiersmen and womento fight and risk their lives, the House should ensure that the Ministry of Defence guarantees them all that they need to carry out that work.
	I have a tremendous respect for our armed services, who do a wonderful job. I believe that they are the most respected armed services in the world. I am not critical in any way of the United States, the most powerful nation in the world, but historically and traditionally, our armed services are trusted and respected and have always proved their worth wherever they have fought in defence of freedom and peace.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) uttered wise remarks when he drew on his experience to give a measured explanation of how he viewed the situation. It is for such a reason that the emergency debate is essential. I only wish that the Government had offered the time themselves. However, I commend the Secretary of State on the full and proper way in which he expressed the Government's position and responded to many interventions. That is what the House is about. I praise our armed services and fully support the Government. I hope that the House sends the message to our armed services that we are entirely with them in the difficult job that they are doing and that we wish them success.

Malcolm Savidge: I have supported our action in Afghanistan from the beginning and I agree that the new deployment is necessary as part of our legitimate response to the atrocity of 11 September and of our legitimate aim to destroy the al-Qaeda terrorist network.
	As ever, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) made a thought- provoking speech. He raised the concern that security troops will be in Kabul while combat troops are elsewhere. I would never take any of his concerns lightly, but I share the hope expressed by the Prime Minister in Prime Minister's questions that the risk of retaliatory action may be reduced because they are in distinct areas of the country.
	During the campaign we have heard, because we are dealing with Afghanistan, the usual jeremiads about the experience of the Victorian British and the USSR. People who cite those are guilty of three things: first, of presenting a far too mechanistic theory of history; secondly, of underestimating the extent to which victory has already been gained; and, thirdly, of underestimating the fact that al-Qaeda in particular and the Taliban in general, are not indigenous Afghan forces, but largely foreign and alien forces.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) raised the spectre of Vietnam. In one important respect the action that we are discussing moves us away from one of the dangers of Vietnam, where high-altitude, and sometimes indiscriminate, bombing led to too many innocent people being killed and to the alienation of the indigenous population.

Paul Marsden: How does the hon. Gentleman explain, therefore, that up to 8,000 civilians died as a result of the bombs dropped on Afghanistan? Does he not think that that alienates the population?

Malcolm Savidge: I do not know the precise number of civilian casualties and I suspect that some people have exaggerated them considerably. However, I was worried that some of the bombing might be less discriminating than it should be. I was especially concerned about the bombing of certain towns. The form of deployment that we are discussing means that specialist forces can target action specifically at armed enemies, and that is a correct approach.
	The campaign has been more successful than the Jeremiahs predicted, but the very fact that the new deployment is necessary should be a salutary reminder that war is not an easy option. There is a real danger that we may suffer serious casualties, which is why it is right that the tone of the debate has been sombre.
	In our continuing campaign against terrorism since 11 September, we must recognise that it will not necessarily be appropriate to take similar military action in all circumstances. We must also realise that major wars to change Governments are certainly not an easy option. For that reason, and because of the concern about overstretch, we should be wary of extending our war to countries not related to events on 11 September. We should concentrate on the present campaign against terror that is related to those terrible events.
	It is important to our Afghan campaign that we have the backing of a United Nations resolution and the support of a broad international coalition. We must be wary of doing anything to alienate that coalition or to divide it, or of taking any actions that could appear to be unilateral.
	Reference was made in an intervention to press speculation that there might be an association between al-Qaeda and Iraq. It is important to remember that that speculation was started by a member of the present Bush Administration who, during an interview in Congress, said it should be recognised that countries like Iraq are happy to co-operate with terrorist organisations like al-Qaeda. That does not sound as if it is based on hard intelligence and we should be wary of using such silly speculation as a basis for considering future action. British military action should be based on intelligence in both senses of the word. It should never be based on the ideology of the US hard right. Under no circumstances should we consider sacrificing British interests or British lives for the sake of a special relationship with a particular US Administration.
	The action in Afghanistan is based on a just causeour response to events on 11 September. We must be careful, however, that we do not take action when it is less obvious that we have a just cause or a proper right, or if it could seem in any way that we are assuming a right to start wars with other countries. We should not lightly go to war in this region. We have been successful because we have had clear objectives and there were predictable consequences, despite the delicate situation in relation to Pakistan. We should not lightly go to war in regions where there could be wholly unpredictable consequences and if there is a chance of causing a catastrophe, possibly involving exchanges of weapons of mass destruction, with perhaps one side using biological and chemical weapons and another using nuclear weapons.
	I support the action, but I hope that when we consider future action, we seek to maintain the unity of the international community in dealing with a dangerous and difficult world.

Gerald Howarth: I intend to be brief because the key part of our purpose in calling for the emergency debate was to give the House itself a chance to express its views. I am sure that you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the quality of the debate and its measured nature have fully vindicated Mr. Speaker's decision to accede to our request. Furthermore, it is inconceivable that our involvement in Afghanistan could be increased from a peacekeeping role to a war-fighting role without Parliament having the opportunity to consider the issue.
	The debate also provides us with an opportunity to correct the record. The Prime Minister told the House on Monday that my right hon. Friend the leader of the Opposition
	does not believe that we should be in Afghanistan.[Official Report, 18 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 25.]
	That is entirely untrue. My right hon. Friend and the Conservative party fully support the deployment of British troops for fighting terrorism, as part of an important contribution to the coalition with the United States in attempting to eradicate the al-Qaeda terrorist network in Afghanistan. Indeed, we have consistently made the point that our troops are trained for war fighting, although sufficiently versatile to perform superbly in the role of peace enforcers. I hope that no hon. Member is under any illusion, given the speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and my other colleagues, about the fact that we support the Government in their move to deploy our forces further in Afghanistan.
	This is not an occasion on which to divide the House tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex asked a number of key questions that we believe the Government should address, and I intend to turn to them in a moment. The issues raised are not pedantic points of debate, but critical questions that the House and the British people are entitled to ask. We are entitled to seek assurances that the Government have addressed those issues before committing our troops to what the Secretary of State said on Monday would be missions
	conducted in unforgiving and hostile terrain against a dangerous enemy.[Official Report, 18 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 39.]
	Indeed, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) articulated the view of the House when he said that there was nothing disloyal in seeking to call the Government to account before deploying our troops.
	In the short time available to me, I should like to go through some of the points made in the debate, but if I miss a few hon. Members' contributions, I hope that they will not take it as a personal slight on what they said. I first turn to the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, whose near unequivocal support of Her Majesty's Government ought to go down in the history books; it was as near as any Government have come to having his approbation on a defence issue. The Government are entitled to take that as full support from him. He was right to say that the Select Committee always maintained that the war will not be resolved quickly, which is certainly the realisation of all hon. Members tonight.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) made a splendid speecha man who was unquestionably one of the finest Secretaries of State for Defence that we have seen in modern times and a man who commanded enormous respect in the military community throughout the United Kingdom. His loss to that office in 1997 was a loss to the country as well. He was right to say that this is no time to flinch and that, if we fail in this mission, al-Qaeda will regroup, thereby threatening not only Afghanistan and the stability that we seek to create there, but other neighbouring countries, as well as those further afield. Leaving al-Qaeda intact would, as he said, only serve to encourage terrorism elsewhere in the world.
	The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson)a former Defence Ministermade an extremely important speech and a very interesting contribution, in which he set out the great difficulties involved in Britain having a unique dual role. I shall turn again to that matter in a moment.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) is a man who provides the House with continuity. I always feel that we have a connection right the way back to many Parliaments before this one, and it will come as no surprise to the House to know that, like me, he has been up the Khyber. As ever, he speaks with great authorityhe is a man who understands parts of the world that many of us will never have been near. He was right to say in our rather cool British wayindeed, in his rather cool British waythat we should carefully consider every step on the road, not make hasty decisions.
	My hon. Friend was also right to utter some salutary warnings, not only about the experiences of the Russians when they were in Afghanistan, but to remind us, the country and indeed the civilised world thateven if we root out all those people from the caves and clear them from Afghanistan, which we are sure will be donethere are nevertheless sleepers in the United States and the United Kingdom who threaten us and remain permanently ready to cause mayhem and havoc in our country.
	The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) made an interesting speech. As he said, he does not know where the military endgame will be, and I fear that that is something which we all feel.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) made a perceptive speech. He spoke on behalf of one of the great homes of the Royal Marines and was right to remind us of his own military experience, which he brings to the House and which we therefore value. He also reminded us of the condition of the familiesthose wives, mothers, daughters and indeed, I suspect, husbands sons and otherswhose loved ones are about to embark on a mission for us in defence of freedom. He was right to remind us that we owe them a debt of gratitude and that, throughout the forthcoming weeks, we must support them as well.
	The hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) made a very perceptive speech. Indeed, he put his finger on the key point that the Government face two optionswe all face them: one is to reduce our long-standing commitments; the other is to provide more resources, and he made his views absolutely explicit.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) made, as ever, a robust contribution, in which he said that we must have the necessary kit. I am sure that Ministers will be well aware not only of the need to do that, but that any failure to provide our troops with the kit that they require will be a dereliction of duty, and I am sure that Ministers will not wish to be cast in that light.
	I wish to ask four questions that have not been adequately dealt with by the Government, and I hope that the Minister will do so in responding to the debate. First and foremost, will he say what proportion of the front-line forces in the mountains will be provided by the United Kingdom? That question was put to the Secretary of State, but I do not think that he was able to answer it. We are entitled to know to what extent those forces are being provided by us and to what extent by the United States of American and, indeed, other countries whose forces are active in the front line.
	Secondly, if the numbers of al-Qaeda produce a greater threat than we anticipate, what plans exist to reinforce 45 Commando? Thirdly, what is ISAF's mission? That is a critical point about ISAF's role, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South. Is our commitment to ISAF open ended? For example, 3 Commando Brigade headquarters will be inside ISAF's remit area. If the peacekeeping forces come under attack and need to be reinforced, can the Minister explain how the lines of communication will work? How will that issue be resolved operationally, so that those forces can be reinforcedpresumably by troops under the command of US Central Command, Centcom?
	Finally, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North raised the issue of Britain's unique role in providing front-line combat troops and peacekeepers on the streets of Kabul. The Minister will have heard the hon. Member's comments on the very real difficulties involved, and the right hon. and learned Member for NorthEast Fife also made that point. The House would welcome more explanation from the Minister, to try to help us with that issue.
	The House has made it abundantly clear tonight that it is under no illusions about the dangers that our troops face and the responsibility that rests on the House, and especially on those Ministers who are responsible for the deployment. As Major General Hagenbeck, commander of US ground forces in Afghanistan, has said, the al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters represent
	a very smart, aggressive and sophisticated enemy.
	The latest deployment is composed of commando gunners, engineers, logisticians, signallers, medics and medium-lift helicopter support personnel. Together they constitute a coherent battle group, which has had the advantage of taking part in the recent demanding exercise in Oman, and we acknowledge, as the right hon. Member for Walsall, South said, the foresight of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in holding them well forward in preparation for just this eventuality.
	However, the heart of the operation will be the infantry. The Royal Marine Commandos enjoy an awesome reputation around the world, by land and by seaper mare per terram. We know that, just as in the Falklands, those green berets will instil fear in the hearts and minds of al-Qaeda, as they have in this country's enemies ever since they took Gibraltar 300 years ago. They are tough, versatile and highly trained. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea said, they are lions commanded by lions. On behalf of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, I wish them all possible good fortune as they embark on a mission which, although many thousands of miles from these islands, is designed to search out and destroy those responsible for one of the most appalling atrocities of modern times and whose continued existence threatens our very way of life.

Lewis Moonie: We have been fortunate in the considerable time that the House has been able to find over the past six months to comment on and debate the war on terrorism. That has provided some thoughtful and measured exchanges. It is certainly evident that, as the debates have progressed over the months, the quality of contribution has improved. Today's debate is certainly no exception.
	I assure the House that its general support and many, if not most, of hon. Members' contributions are appreciated by the Government. It is important, of course, that the outside world and our armed forces see and understand the strength of support that the Government command in our actions. I thank the House for its support. The opportunity to reaffirm support for our armed forces, which has been taken in all quarters of this House, is clearly vital, particularly at a time like this. We heard that on Monday, but it always bears repetition.
	I shall attempt to answer as many specific points raised as possibleof all the debates to which I have responded from the Front Bench, the fewest questions have been asked of me in this onebut I want first to highlight some of the points made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. First, we believe that we are right to act in Afghanistan. Secondly, we think that the House should note that the action that the international community has taken to date has been successful. Thirdly, British forces have throughout played a vital role in that success.
	I hope and trust that many in the House were reassured by my right hon. Friend's explaining that, first, there is no incompatibility or inconsistency in operating within the international security assistance force and undertaking the missions that we are planning with the deployment of 45 Commando.
	Secondly, on the question of Turkey, we have been as honest and open as possible in explaining the status of the negotiations and the prospect of Turkey assuming leadership of ISAF. Frankly, all that I can add is that discussions continue, they will be continuing this week, and we hope that they will reach a resolution very quickly. Thirdly, we have constantly stressedI am sure that that is why the point has also been accepted by the Opposition, certainly by the official Oppositionthat the rooting out of the remaining al-Qaeda elements would take time, but that it must be done.
	Members have commented and made suggestions on a number of what I would term specific and quite detailed military issues. I hesitate to disappoint Members of all parties, but we generally take our advice from our military staff. That may answer many of the helpful and, perhaps particularly, not quite so helpful suggestions that have been made. I know that many Members have an interest in military affairs, and I certainly recognise that some have military experiencesome over many generations, including in the regions concernedbut I do not think that any would claim to match that of the Chief of the Defence Staff.
	The House might care to note in passing that in the autumn the Chief of the Defence Staff said:
	We are in this for the long haul.
	He was right then, and he is right now. We do not send our forces off around the world on a whim. His advice has been crucial in determining what forces we deploy, for which missions and for how long.
	I want to address one or two specific points mentioned. I hope that the Opposition are now satisfied with the response that they have been given: 45 Commando group command and control is entirely separate from that of ISAF, and is integrated in the system for patrolling active operations in the country. The 45 Commando group will come directly under Centcom's command, through our own officers. Frankly, that is entirely normal and correct.
	Exit strategies have been mentioned, in which regard I sometimes feel one is expected almost to assume the mantle of the forecaster of tomorrow's racing. It really is not like that. We make the best estimates that we can. The exit strategy on this occasion is simple: we will leave when the task is completed.
	I want to cover some of the more detailed points made in the debate. It was suggested byI thinkmore than one hon. Member that perhaps some form of armour should be available to the force. That point was equally quickly knocked down by those who have ever been in the area. To provide such armour would surely create a force that is the antithesis of the Royal Marines. It is correct to say that 45 Commando soldiers are lightly equipped. That is one reason for their being what they are. They are mobile and their use in mountain terrain in much of Afghanistan depends on that ability. They rely on speed, surprise and flexibility of operation. They form a composite unit; they have their own light artillery, logistic support and engineers.

Hugh Robertson: I should like to clear up that point. There is all the world of difference, as I am sure the Minister realises, between armour and light armour. The Marines, as a light-armoured force, have been training with light armour for many years. Indeed, I went on such an exercise with them in Norway and spent a whole summer attached to them. Such light-armoured vehicles could play some part in Afghanistan.

Lewis Moonie: I do not want to go into too much operational detail about what we are doing. I assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that if we need armoured vehicles they will be supplied.

Bernard Jenkin: Is the hon. Gentleman able to answer the question that the Secretary of State was unable to answer? Obviously, many of the Marines whom we are deploying will be in the front line. What proportion of the front line will be British forces rather than Americans and others?

Lewis Moonie: That is a rather difficult question to answer. I am not here to give details of an operational point. This is not a single deployment. We are sending troops to add to the forces that are available in order to root out remnants of the al-Qaeda network. Therefore, on the basis of the information that we have, each deployment will be of the strength thought necessary to carry out the job involved. I cannot answer the question with any certainty. One can conceive of an operation involving part of the frontline strength, and of an operation involving all of it. One can conceive of them acting on their own in relatively small numbers, and of engaging all forces committed to the action. I cannot give any more or clearer answers than that. I hope that that is enough to satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
	On the support that is necessary, we must recognise that complete air supremacy is available in Afghanistan. Therefore, at any time during any conflict, the Marines will be able to call on quite a wide array of air-support measures. Clearly, as I have said, we will make provision should armour be thought necessary, but I honestly do not think that that will be necessary.
	The point was made again about the Pakistani border. Anybody who has been anywhere near the border in Afghanistan will know full well just how difficult it is to contain. We acknowledge that the terrain, geography and ethnicity of the people are factors that demonstrate the difficulty of ensuring that the border remains closed to any member of al-Qaeda who is trying to evade capture. We certainly continue to urge the Pakistan Government to take measures to help to seal the border where necessary, and they have been very helpful in that regard.
	We can confirmagain, I shall not give any detailsthat full operational intercapability of communications is available, as it has been throughout our operations in Afghanistan. Our Marines routinely train with US forces, so they are well used to operating together.
	On some of the specific points made, the analogy of the dragon's teeth is not a particularly good one, as Perseus defeated the warriors involved

Menzies Campbell: After some time.

Lewis Moonie: But he did defeat them. I shall recite the story in Greek, if the House wants; in fact, I cannot. Enough of such unseemly levity. The right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that our people are going into a dangerous situation.
	Much has been made of the risk to ISAF. When ISAF was deployed, it was never envisaged that it was going into a risk-free situation. There have always been exits in view, so that if the worst came to the worst and anything really vicious happened there, the force could withdraw to Bagram and defend itself. I can assure hon. Members in all parts of the House that it can defend itself very well.

Nicholas Winterton: A question was asked about the number of troops that were part of our contribution to ISAF. Am I right in thinking that the figure is about 1,800?

Lewis Moonie: The figures is about 1,600 at present and is scheduled to drop as the mission develops.
	Our forces are involved in two distinct rolespeacekeeping duties and top-level fighting. We excel in both. That point must be underlined.

Michael Weir: The Minister has not mentioned the families of the soldiers, a subject that was mentioned during the debate. He will understand that those families are interested less in geopolitics or the war against terrorism than in the fact that the soldiers are in action. Has the Minister any plans to visit the families?

Lewis Moonie: I have had plans to visit that area for some time. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I live near there. I shall be happy to visit the families involved.
	It being three hours after the commencement of the proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker interrupted the proceedings pursuant to Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) and the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Adoption and Children Bill (Programme) (No. 3)

Jacqui Smith: I beg to move,
	That the Orders of 29th October 2001 (Adoption and Children Bill (Programme)) and 23rd January 2002 (Adoption and Children Bill (Programme) (No. 2)) shall be varied as follows
	Consideration and Third Reading
	(1) Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be concluded in three allotted days.
	(2) The proceedings on consideration shall be taken on each of the allotted days as shown in the first column of the following Table and shall be taken in the order so shown, and each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table.
	
		Table
		
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings  
			 First allotted day Amendments relating to Clauses Nos. 2 to 16, New Clauses relating to the Adoption and Children Act Register, amendments relating to Clauses Nos. 116 to 120, 123 and 124 Two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order or Ten o'clock, whichever is the earlier 
			 Second allotted day Amendments relating to Clauses Nos. 81 to 88, 121, 122, 125, 52, 54 to 63 and 75, Schedule No. 1, Clauses Nos. 76 and 77, Schedule No. 2, Clauses Nos. 78 to 80, 89 to 94, 96 to 100, 103, 105, 106, 114 and 115, New Clauses relating to Part 2, amendments relating to Clauses Nos. 107 to 112 Ten o'clock 
			 Third allotted day New Clauses relating to the remainder of Part 1, amendments relating to Clauses Nos. 1, 17 to 51, 53 and 64 to 74 Three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill 
			 New Clauses relating to the remainder of Part 3, amendments relating to Clauses Nos. 113, 95, 101, 102, 104, 126, Schedules Nos. 3, 4 and 5, Clauses Nos. 127 to 134, Schedule No. 6, Clauses Nos. 135 to 137, remaining new Clauses, new Schedules and remaining proceedings on consideration. Four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill 
		
	
	(3) The proceedings on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of the proceedings on the Bill on the third allotted day.
	(4) An allotted day is one on which the Bill is put down on the main business as first Government Order of the Day.
	Because of this afternoon's emergency debate, we had to revisit the programme motion late yesterday. I take the opportunity to thank the usual channels for their co-operation in enabling us to make the necessary changes. Following a resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee, it had previously been agreed that Report should be taken over two days, to allow for the fullest possible consideration of the issues that had arisen in Committee, the changes that the Government undertook to make in response to concerns raised by hon. Members during an extremely useful Committee stage, and concerns raised by those who gave evidence in the Special Standing Committee. So far, the process has been always been open to input from stakeholders.
	The motion provides for debates to take place over three days, including tonight. I emphasise that in providing for this revision, it is our intention to allow even more time than was previously available. The second day is not programmed in detail. There will be an opportunity to revisit the motion when the timing of the remaining stages becomes clearer. Of course, there will be full consultation before any revised motion is laid.
	The proposed programme provides extensive opportunities to debate aspects of the Bill that attracted particular interest in Committeefor example, disclosure of information concerning adoption, the modernisation of the legal process of adoption, and some of the important changes introduced by the Government, such as the extension of the Adoption and Children Act register to Scotland. We should have an opportunity to discuss that this evening.
	I commend the programme motion to the House.

Tim Loughton: I thank the Minister for a generous allocation of time, which has come about because of the emergency debate this afternoon. The Opposition welcome that. We are itching to get back to this important Bill, from which we have been absent for some two months, since we finished the 24th of our sittings in Committee and Special Standing Committee, way back on 17 January. We are keen to get on with the work of progressing such an important Bill, giving it as much time as possible to be considered in another place, and allowing it to become law as soon as possible. Many of the measures that we have been discussing in detail are sorely needed in the best interests of many children who need stable homesa luxury that they do not have at present.
	I take issue with the need for a programme motion at all, and the need for the programming of the entire Bill through its various stages in the House. Right from the start, the Bill clearly had cross-party support. All hon. Members interested in the subject made a constructive contribution on Second Reading and in some detail, with considerable expertise, during the Committee stages.
	This is a case in which programming has been counterproductive. It is a shame that, because of the Standing Orders of the House, we were not able to have more sessions or longer sessions during the pre-scrutiny witness stage at the outset, which we all found exceedingly interesting and helpful, but which was severely curtailed. Given the short period between the witness stage and Standing Committee, there was little time to revisit in more detail some of the issues that the expert witnesses brought up in response to our questions.
	Because of the previous programme motion, there was an imbalance in the way the time was allocated during the Committee stage, the result of which is that 43 clauses were unscrutinised, and seven were only partly scrutinised before the knife fell. That means that 37 per cent.more than one thirdof the clauses had no Committee time. Even the more generous allocation that we are getting because of this afternoon's debate does not make up for what we missed out in Committee, where we had little time to debate the detail of placement orders, the problems of recovery of children by parents, parental consent issues, and the finer detail of the adopted children register and the adoption contact register. Two of the five schedules received no consideration in Committeethose dealing with registration, disclosure of birth records and so on.
	We welcome the additional time. It is not my intention to take up the entire time allocated for discussion of the programme motion, as we want to get on with the debate. The way in which the emergency debate this afternoon shifted the timetable is helpful. It was only at the end of last week that the Government disclosed their hand on the Bill and tabled about 90 amendments and four new clauses, with a long letter by way of briefing notes from the Minister. Why has it taken two months for those amendments to be put before the House, giving us little time to consider some intricate and technical issues? It is a shame that we have not had longer to consider them.
	As many witnesses attested, the Bill is a once- in-a-generation opportunity to change the situation regarding adoption and adoption law in this country. We need to get it right, and we are more likely to do it by maximum scrutiny of the highly technical amendments that we will discuss on Report. It is worth mentioning that the Bill raises certain issues, especially relating to adoption by unmarried couples, domestic violence and contact orders, which, although important, have received undue publicity in the press. I would not like those two issues to overshadow and dominate a Bill that deals with many other important, complex and detailed issues relating to providing better homes for children. It is important to have a good spread of time for those issues.
	The Minister said that we may have to revisit the programme motion. I believe that that is a strong likelihood, either because there will be another emergency debate or because many more Government amendments will be tabled later. Few Government amendments have been tabled so far for the second allotted day, especially for the latter half of it. No Government amendments have been tabled for the third allotted day, on what are likely to be interesting matters for debate.
	When are the second and third allottedand, I hope, fulldays likely to be? Will the Minister assure us that she will do everything in her power to ensure that they take place sooner rather than later? It is an oddity, although I gather that it is not unique, for Report days not to fall in quick succession. We do not want the trail to go cold.
	We shall not object to the programme motion, but we have some difficulties with it. We are agreeing to it reluctantly and giving the Government a great deal of trust. I hope that in return the Government will give us as much notice as possible of any further amendments, with as full an explanation of them as possible. I hope too that the gap between the Government giving us the information and our being able to debate the amendments will be as long as possible.
	There is great and increasing interest in the Bill from outside the House. The many interested professional bodies and voluntary agencies take a close interest, and they have been immensely useful to Committee members of all parties in the way that they have informed our debate. In addition, ordinary people have a real interest in adoption, either because they want to adopt or because adoption may become a real option for younger members of their families. The current system does not work as well as it might in helping people in such circumstances.
	The Opposition will not oppose the programme motion, but it is worth putting those provisos on record. In the spirit of co-operation, I hope that the Minister will respond generously.

Hilton Dawson: In supporting the principle of programming, which has focused the House's attention effectively, I draw my hon. Friend the Minister's attention to a big problem looming in the first part of the third allotted day. Three hours have been provided for what is bound to be a huge debate involving a wider range of people than those involved in Committee about unmarried couples' ability to adopt.
	The issue of access to information is also involved. That huge, complex and important part of the Bill needs thorough debate about the issues to do with placement, centred on clauses 31 to 33. Might a way be found of distinguishing between those issues, and in particular between unmarried couples and placement orders? That would afford discrete time, in particular to debate placement decisions, which I fear might be completely pushed out of debate by the weight of interest in the unmarried couples issue.
	Finally, when our consideration resumes, I should prefer the two days to be taken together to facilitate debate.

Evan Harris: The need to discuss both placement orders and unmarried couples depends on how contentious the latter issue is, at least for Ministers and hon. Members of many parties who support the contention. If the Minister were to clarify the Government's thinking on that, it would help us decide whether the proposed amount of time was about right.

Hilton Dawson: I hope that we shall not encounter much contention about placement orders, either. I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister tabling a few amendments on that issue, too.

Sandra Gidley: I shall be brief, because I do not want to take up too much time. I welcome the extra time provided for the Bill. However, an awful lot of Government amendments have been tabled, and, unlike the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), I have not received an explanatory letter. I should be grateful if the Minister would ensure that one reached me. That was possibly the result of an office oversight, but it would be useful if an explanation were forthcoming.

Robert Walter: I hesitate to delay the House on a measure that has considerable cross-party support, but I have two points. First, the Special Standing Committee was an example of how the House should consider legislation and take evidence from interested parties. On several occasions, the overwhelming weight of the evidence and opinion in the Committee was at one, and the only people who were out of step were the Government. We shall discuss some of the issues involved again as we proceed.
	Secondly, I want to express frustration with the concept of programming and especially about some of the provisions in the programme motion. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said, some 90 Government amendments have been tabled. We have seen them only recently and they will require debate. Some are technical, and others are more complex. I am delighted that at least one is identical to an amendment that I proposed in Committee. The Government said that they wanted to take it away and think about it. I take some small credit for that technical measure.
	It was frustrating in Committee when debate on important items was cut short. I remember a vivid example when the hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) proposed some important amendments that related to access by violent parents, which reappear in the amendments listed for consideration. She had barely minutes in which to put the case, and there was no time for debate. It is important to have time for debate.
	We shall not divide the House. I am grateful that we seem to have slightly more time for debate. If we must have such programme motions, we should be more creative in considering their implications.

Jonathan Djanogly: May I

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The traditional way for hon. Members to catch my eye is for them to rise in their place.

Jonathan Djanogly: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I rise to support my hon. Friends' comments. The Standing Committee was the first on which I served, and I was surprised that we did not cover a third of the amendments. It was not as though it was an unfriendly Committee or that we argued needlessly. I believe that everyone who attended would agree that it was a constructive format in which to discuss an important measure. There are lessons to be learned from that in terms of programming.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) mentioned that he hoped that we would not be sidetracked by a handful of contentious issues. I fully support that, but they are indeed contentious. I have received more correspondence from various organisations on the issue of contact than on virtually everything else put together. That is of some concern, considering that we did not even cover the contact clauses in Committee. I hope that the issue will be considered properly as we continue debating the Bill.

Jacqui Smith: I agree with the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) that we need to address a range of issues, and that is why I welcome the extra days now available to consider the issues. I am disappointed with his comments about the Government amendments. He cannot have it both ways. The Government have been at pains to respond to the issues raised in Committee, and we will debate the Walter amendment on Report. However, some even more important issues have been raised by stakeholders and it was important to discuss them in detail before we tabled amendments. We have listened, and taken on board their concerns.
	In relation to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), we are certainly considering more amendments on the important issue of the placement process. We are looking at the evidence from stakeholders.
	On the timing of the second and third days, Ministers are at the

Tim Loughton: Mercy?

Jacqui Smith: The business managers of the House are extremely merciful. They will be the source of the decision concerning days two and three. We have heard hon. Members talk about the importance of ensuring that there is adequate time for debate. That is why I said that it was important that we also looked again at the programming motion.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre that we need separate discussions on the important placement provisions and the interesting issue of the amendments on unmarried adoptions.
	I apologise to the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) for the fact that she has not received the letter, which I believe was sent to all Committee members. I will ensure that she gets another copy because it was a good letter. It was short on flow charts, but big on explanation. I hope that that will be our approach throughout Report.
	Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day
	  
	Adoption and Children Bill
	  
	[1st allotted day]

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

Clause 4
	  
	Assessments etc. for adoption support services

Julian Brazier: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 4, line 24, after needs, insert
	'or needs of connected persons'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in page 4, line 30, leave out from services, to end of line 31 and insert
	'the local authority has the duty to provide suitable services to that person.'.
	No. 3, in page 4, line 30, leave out decide whether to.
	No. 4, in page 4, line 31, after person, insert
	'and provide a written explanation of their reasons if those support services will not be forthcoming'.
	No. 5, in page 5, line 9, after conditions, insert
	'and provide for a review of a decision not to provide adoption support services,'.
	Government amendments Nos. 48 and 37.

Julian Brazier: As this is the first group of amendments in a three-day Report stage, I would like to say how much I enjoyed the Committee stage of the Bill. Originating from a long-running national and cross-party campaign, the Bill aims to help some of the most disadvantaged children. The Committee was packed with people with specialised knowledge and interest.
	I will not try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by reiterating the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) about the guillotine of the Committee. I share his concerns about that, but I am pleased to have been part of the process.
	Our amendments concern support services for adopters. It is difficult to exaggerate how valuable and how brave many parents who adopt a child from care are. It is easy to forget that many children are in care because they have been abused or severely neglected. They bring a package of problems into the homes of the adoptive parents, who must deal with them without any professional training.
	I wish to give one example from my constituency of two little boys adopted by a family who discovered that one had been thrown out so often into the cold that his feet had to be treated for gangrene; in fact, he came close to having them amputated. The other had been locked in a cellar for years and, as a result, had no power of speech. Teaching a child to speak at the age of seven involves specialist support services. It is those sorts of specialist services that we are talking about in the amendments.
	The Opposition's concern about clause 4, which deals with these services, is that, as it is drafted, social services are required to make assessments, but are not required to provide any services to support parents who have adopted children from care.
	There are several points that need making here. The first concerns assessment itself. An assessment must be carried out by a qualified person, in many cases a social worker. We are short of social workers. In nearly all cases, an assessment must be carried out by someone from a category of professionals of whom we are short. Yet very often it is obvious what needs doing, and if the local authority is willing to make resources available, carrying out an assessment involves an inordinate delay and a waste of time. Amendments Nos. 3 and 7 would place on a local authority the duty to provide the suitable services that adoptive parents need.

Hilton Dawson: I am entirely in sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying about adoptive parents receiving any service that they have been assessed as needing. Would he also apply that to natural parents, and to children living in residential care, foster care and other circumstances? Why should it apply only to adoption?

Julian Brazier: In Committee, we agreed that there should be a requirement in some of those cases. Children being adopted from care are special cases. A failure of an adoption is very expensive for the state, as well as being a disaster for the child. This is a matter of prudence for the state, although we would all agree that the overriding concern is the child.
	I wish to refer to another case from my constituency surgery; that of a girl adopted by constituents of mine from a London authority. She had been sexually abused over a long period by her father. As a result, she needed profound professional therapy. The family that adopted her was receiving no financial allowance of any kind from the London authority and it provided her with no advice. The adoptive parents were extremely poor and it must have been a desperate decision to take the child on. However, they went out and found the therapy. Their request to the authority was to have the bus tickets paid for, so that the girl could go for therapy two or three times a week. In a case such as this, what possible purpose could there be for wasting resources and time on specialist assessments if the therapy has been found by the parents? Surely the best thing would be to provide them with the bus tickets. In that case there was a happy endingtheir MP chased the matter up and eventually we got the relatively small sum out of the local authority.

Hilton Dawson: A hero.

Julian Brazier: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remark.
	Let me give another example. An adoptive mother rang the Adoption Forum last week, asking how she could get immediate help. One of her two children had been through a particularly bad spell and was being threatened with expulsion from school. The mother said that she had a good enough relationship with her local authority but knew that it would take many weeks, if not months, for it to respond to a request for help. She needed advice right then and there because she could see no way forward. She described how desperate she was. She felt that, in her frustration, she might be driven to a physical attack on the child or other drastic action that could be harmful to this already deeply damaged child.
	The lesson here is different because the family situation might well need assessment; certainly, some serious work would be needed for the family. However, the mother needed help at the time of her call, or at least very soon. She did not need long-term assessment with no determinate date or promise of help at the end of it.
	As Barnardos put it:
	the provisions contained in Clause 4 do give rise to considerable concern. The right to an assessment of their needs will be available to children and families but the local authority is then under no obligation to provide any of the services that it may have decided are needed. Any potential adoptive applicant reading this Bill would not be reassured that should they decide to take on the
	difficult
	task of parenting a child with very complex needs, they will not be left to cope without any real entitlement to support.
	The Local Government Association sums it up very well:
	Support is vital in promoting successful placements and preventing adoption breakdown and should encourage more potential adopters.
	That is the Government's No. 1 objectivemore potential adopters.
	The point, which relates to amendment No. 6, is that much of the help needed is for the carerthat is, one of the connected persons in the legal terminologyrather than for the child in isolation. Parents taking on a severely damaged child often need help, hence the wording of amendment No. 6.
	Let me give an example from the moving testimony that we received from the Catholic Children's Society. Bath time is an important time for every motheror perhaps, in this enlightened age, I should say every parent. It takes on a whole new dimension, however, if it involves a small child who has been repeatedly sexually abused at bath time, which is apparently the most frequent time for sexual abuse to take place. The challenge of trying to bathe a child who is terrified of being taken into the bathroom is one of a quite different order. In those circumstances, the connected person rather than the child may need the assistance.
	Amendment No. 4 is a less stringent requirement for local authorities to provide a written explanation of why support services are not forthcoming. Amendment No. 5 would provide for a review of the decision not to provide such services. I will not dwell on the latter now, as we will come later to a group of amendments on independent reviews. However, if the Government cannot accept amendments Nos. 3 or 7and I rather hope that they willsurely they could at the very least accept Nos. 4 and 5.
	All too many debates in this House relate to resourcing, so it is important to place the amendments firmly in context. The question of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) was a fair one. Keeping children in care is very expensive. Not only is a child far more likely to thrive when adopted, but adoption also places a far smaller burden on the state and means that the child is much less likely to impinge, tragically, on the criminal justice system or mental health establishments later on.

Jonathan Djanogly: My hon. Friend makes a very important point about how short-sighted it is of the local authority not to pursue the assessment and pay for the support that is required, because compared with the cost of years in care, it is peanuts.

Julian Brazier: I am indebted to my hon. Friend, not least for bringing to mind a particularly telling quote made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) when, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, he used to pride himself on being the greatest Scrooge in the House of Commons. Those of us who went to meeting after meeting to discuss adoption and left unwatered might even extend that comparison further. He none the less made the very point that my hon. Friend has just made. He said that this was the one area that he had come across in Government spending where there was a case for unlimited resourcing because the saving would be massive compared with the very small sums in outlay. The sad fact is that 20 per cent. of adoptions fail. This willingness to spend relatively small sums up front can save huge sums later.
	It is not just about money. A child may go completely off the rails and end up in prison. Some 40 per cent. of under-age prisoners have been in care. We, as representatives of the state have failed them. It is not simply that they are expensive; those children's lives have gone from abuse to an even worse downward spiral and when that happens, we really have failed them. The question is not just what price we put on a child's welfare but what the future holds for the state as well as the child if we do not help adoptions to succeed.
	Will the Minister explain where Government amendment No. 37 comes from? It requires the Treasury to be kept informed of certain expenditures. Has Her Majesty's Treasury just woken up to the fact that the Bill involves money?
	In summary, the leaders of all the major parties and hon. Members in all parts of the House have drawn attention to the scandal of children languishing in care. They are all solidly behind this measure to get children in care adopted by loving families. The adopters are providing a wonderful service to society at considerable risk to themselves, taking these often very damaged children into their homes. Offering them guaranteed support when they really need it should be a mandatory requirement, rather than simply assessing them.

Sandra Gidley: I would like to add my voice in support of the amendments. I tabled similar amendments in Committee. I must admit to disappointment that, despite a wide-ranging debate in Committee, the Government have remained completely intransigent on the issue. That was not only the case in Committee; it was highlighted on Second Reading. We heard two submissions earlier, but nearly every submission raised that very point. During the evidence-gathering stage of the Bill, many of the witnesses highlighted that point.
	As the Bill stands, a local authority must assess the need for adoption services, but is under no obligation to provide those services. Even if it decides to provide them for a short time, it is under no obligation to continue to do so for a prolonged period. The Minister has repeatedly assured us that the rights of the child are paramount. The refusal to provide the necessary adoption support services flies completely in the face of that statement. We want to get real for a moment.
	As has been highlighted, we are not talking about cuddly babiesin 2002, babies are not the majority of children being adopted. A significant number of the children being adopted today demonstrate considerable problems and have complex needs. A significant number of them have mental health problems too. It is not putting too fine a point on it to say that prospective parents can be taking on a considerable case load. Of course, they do it out of a sense of love and the hope that they can make a significant and positive difference to a child's life. However, those parents may not necessarily be in a financial position to provide all the services that have been identified to support their child adequately if the local authority is not in a position to do so. Similarly, a short-term agreement to fund certain services is totally inadequate. The parent is making a long-term commitment to the child, so the Government, via the local authority, should also provide a long-term commitment.
	Much in the Bill is sensible and I believe that the Government's heart is in the right place on the issue, but this matter was discussed at length in Committee and all Opposition Members were disappointed at the Minister's response. I will remind the House of what she said:
	I turn to the argument . . . that local authorities are very likely just to ignore assessments. That is not my experience of local authorities. In the past, local authorities may not have provided adequate adoption support services when they did not have a duty or the resources to do so.[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 13 December 2001; c. 595.]
	Unwittingly, the Minister backed my arguments, as she acknowledged that in the past services failed when resources were inadequate.
	The Government announced extra funding in December 2000, which was to last three years. By the time the Bill is on the statute book, that pot of money will have disappearedit will be at the end of its useful life. Who knows what the Government's priorities will be then? There is no guarantee for the future of adoption services in the Bill. Many hon. Members want a greater and more prolonged commitment.
	I also support the comments that have been made on the right to appeal. Much has been said about appeal being built into every stage of the procedure. If services are refused for financial or other reasons, the parent, who is acting in the best interests of the child, is in no position to challenge the decision. I ask the Government to think again.

Jonathan Djanogly: I speak in favour of amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5. The Government have made much of the worthy proposal that local authorities will provide adoption support services. Indeed, many organisations involved in adoption congratulated the Government on bringing support to the fore in the Bill. It is fair to say that that was before many of them had had a good look at clause 4, which basically states that an assessment must be carried out if a person requests it but that, having made the assessment, it is up to the authority to decide whether it wishes to provide the services.
	The reality is that the level of services provided varies considerably from authority to authority. Some councils have effective, efficient and helpful services and some do not. One of the good points about the Bill is that it is intended to raise the general level of service to what is considered to be best practice. The clause as it stands could, however, work directly against that aim. In fact, it could lead to more money being wasted. Hundreds of assessments could be undertaken but they might not lead to the provision of any support, which would be a travesty.
	I fully support amendment No. 3 because if an assessment is carried out, support should be provided. Equally, I support amendments Nos. 4 and 5, which would pick up councils for wasting taxpayers' money on pointless assessments by making them explain why they refused to act on them. Surely, however, the Government have done their sums on this matter. If they believe in support, they should back that up by paying for it. Alternatively, if they feel that funds will be inadequate, would it not be more appropriate to limit at the outset those who would be eligible for assessment, rather than paying for everyone to be assessed and turning them down afterwards? That could lead to fewer adoptions rather than more, which would be totally contrary to the purpose of the Bill.

Kevin Brennan: Is the hon. Gentleman therefore suggesting that he wants councils to carry out assessments of whether somebody needs an assessment?

Jonathan Djanogly: I am not suggesting that. I am speaking in favour of the amendment, under which assessments should be carried out and funding provided. My argument is that if we accept the Government's approach, it would be more sensible to do as the hon. Gentleman suggests. That would at least avoid getting people into the system, building up their expectations and then spitting them out again. That is what could happen, which could lead to real dangers in the system.

Kevin Brennan: The hon. Gentleman has agreed that his suggestion is as I saideverybody who would otherwise present themselves under the Bill in its current form would present themselves for an assessment as to whether they needed an assessment.

Jonathan Djanogly: I am not suggesting that, but I shall move on. I have made the point that clause 4 still lacks clarity. I do not believe that it is in the spirit of the Bill, and I hope that the Government will re-address the issue.

Elfyn Llwyd: I support amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7.
	First, I want to deal with the question of duty. As we know, local authorities have various duties, some of which are obvious, such as that under the Education Act 1944 to provide a reasonable standard of education. Some of them are even more mundane, such as the duty to collect refuse. If, at the core of this Bill, the interests of the child are paramount, I cannot understand why we decline to impose a statutory duty on local authorities to follow their own assessments and provide what is seen to be necessary per the assessment.

Hilton Dawson: Can the hon. Gentleman indicate any other area of local government social policy in which there is a statutory duty to meet and identify assessed need of an individual or family?

Elfyn Llwyd: Yes. It exists in relation to children who are statemented and to provision for dealing with special needs in schools. Even if I were wrongI think that I am rightthe hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has already referred to a more learned person than me making an exception of this area in terms of Government spending. I realise that we are dealing with a finite purse, but only a given percentage of youngsters will be subject to adoption. We have already heard that 20 per cent. of adoptions fail; it is a tragedy when that happens. We all know what occurs: the slide into criminality, awful drug problems and so on. Oftennot always, of course, thankfullythe root cause is an unhappy childhood, and frequently that is partly because an adoption has gone badly wrong. I hope that this will be a landmark Bill, but clause 4 is badly drafted and does not provide for this particular duty to be imposed.
	The ignoring of assessments was raised earlier in the debate. I am not saying that local authorities will ignore assessments, but their funding will be finite, and they will therefore be directed as to what services they provide by the amount of money that they have. That is a fairly obvious equation. When local government makes assessments of the care component and the residence component for the elderly, all manner of fun and games occur. The assessments are cost-driven, and we all see the unfortunate results of that.
	I took part in the Special Standing Committee procedure. I congratulate the Government on that positive step forward. We heard from many knowledgeable people and received memorandums from individuals, experts and societiesor stakeholders, in the Minister's words. However, why are the stakeholders being so obviously ignored? The hon. Member for Canterbury referred to the views of Barnardosit succinctly asked what the point of an assessment would be if it were not followed through. That point is logical.
	The Billthere is much to commend in itseeks to introduce uniformity in practice across England and Wales. As we know, one of the problems is that the quality of adoption services depends on where one lives. We have heard of postcode prescribing, and in adoption some areas are switched on while others are most definitely not. The Bill also seeks uniformity among providers and agencies, so I do not wish to criticise the Bill for the sake of it and merely because I sit on this side of the House.
	These points were made in Committee but, more important, they reflect what the stakeholders say. Unlike me and possibly several other hon. Members, the stakeholders are experts, and we are here to produce the best possible legislation. If stakeholders tell us time after time that delivery must follow the assessment, we should pay attention to them.
	As I pointed out in Committee, the ATD Fourth World memorandum states:
	Section 4(4) only places a duty on a local authority to decide whether to provide any services to that person. It is recognised by all parties, including the Department of Health, that adopted children, birth parents and adoptive parents all need support. Support services should be on offer to everyone involved who can take them up as they see fit.
	The Adoption Forum's memorandum added:
	One of the laudable aims of this Bill is to bring adoption/permanency support into the front line.
	I agree entirely with that, as I am sure we all do. It went on:
	Adoptions that fail do so because families feel unable to cope and support has been all but impossible to find and fund.
	We all want to improve the rate of success, and the memorandum continued:
	If the rate of success is to be improvedand it is difficult to see why there would be much point in upping adoption figures unless adoptions are going to succeedthen there must be help available.
	I could read further memorandums, and we all heard the evidence in Committee. I am disappointed that that evidence is being brushed aside without proper consideration.
	I know that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) shares my wish to improve the Bill, but I know what he will say. That is not to suggest that he is boring. I readily admit that he has far more experience in social services than I have, and he will say that funding is finite. However, I have experience in child law, and I anticipate that he will argue that we cannot issue a blank cheque. Perhaps I am wrong, so he might wish to intervene and make another point.

Hilton Dawson: I cannot resist the invitation. The hon. Gentleman makes a point, but no one is talking about writing blank cheques. Surely his remarks about a lack of support services entirely underestimate the effects that the Bill will have. It will provide a remarkable improvement in adoption and post-adoption support services to children and families. I question why he is so concerned to give unlimited resources to particular people in certain circumstances when he is not arguing the same for children in all other parts of the care system. He is certainly not arguing the same for families with children living in poverty.

Elfyn Llwyd: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and those arguments will doubtless be made in another debate, but today we are dealing with adoption law.
	The hon. Gentleman asks why there should be a carte blanche in terms of resources, but we are dealing with the most needy and vulnerable people in society. The point is that these young kids have probably already been through turmoil in reaching the point of being placed for adoption. We should make the resources available, so that a need can be met whenever an assessment identifies one. Otherwise, there is no point in any of this, and we will be letting children down. Although we all sign up to the principle of the paramountcy of the child, the risk is that the Bill will let children down.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is much in the Bill to commend it. It contains several mechanisms that are most welcome and extremely useful, but a weakness has been identified, and in the light of the circumstances, the Special Standing Committee procedure and so on, it is right and proper that we debate it.

Jonathan Djanogly: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a form of postcode lottery operates, whereby people are in effect dependent on living in an area that happens to have a good agency? If the agency can provide the necessary support, they are in luck; if not, that could be to the detriment of the child and others.

Elfyn Llwyd: That is right, and to be fair to the Government, they have identified that problem. Much of the thinking behind the Bill is very clear, but the laudable aim is to introduce uniform quality of service throughout local authorities in England and Wales. However, the hon. Gentleman is right: as things stand, there is a postcode lottery. The system is haphazard and the outcome depends on where one lives. Those of us who are members of the all-party adoption groupincluding the hon. Member for Canterburyhave heard that said year after year. We are therefore delighted that the Government are introducing the Bill, but I am afraid that it is flawed, and it behoves us all to make plain our dissatisfaction with this particular aspect of it.
	Of course, there are degrees of adoption servicessome major and others relatively minorand the Adoption Forum has expressed concern in that regard. It asked what will happen if a local authority agrees that support is needed, but says that it does not have the staff to provide it. Such a situation is not acceptable, but under the Bill as drafted, a local authority could say as much. That is totally unfair.
	I support amendment No. 4, which would require a written explanation of reasons why support services were not forthcoming, and amendment No. 5, which would require a review. As other Members have made plain, many local authorities are failing, and often because of nothing more than a lack of resources. Although it has been said that some local authorities are prejudiced against adoption, I doubt whether any are, and I shall not pursue that red herring now. If the problem is a lack of resources, we must look to Government to provide them. As I have said, in any event we are dealing with only a percentage of youngsters. The problem could be worked out, and the Government could examine the budgeting situation.
	Given that we have gone through the Standing Committee process, heard evidence from the experts in Special Standing Committee, and heard extremely useful and constructive contributions from Members on both sides of the House, it would be a terrible shame if we fell short of our intention to bring in a ground-breaking Bill that will provide an excellent service for those most in need of support.

Tim Loughton: I am following the hon. Gentleman's comments with interest and great support, but the problem may be even worse than he suggests. Because of the crisis in many social services departments, whether in the care of children or of the elderly, departments are increasingly having to limit their activities to their statutory responsibilities. Therefore, the responsibilities that are not statutory requirements are taking a lower priority, whether the departments wish that to happen or not. That is exactly what would happen to adoption support services if they do not take on the statutory obligation.

Elfyn Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. That is precisely the position as I see it. Adoption UK told us that it welcomes some of the changes to clause 4 and is delighted that adoption support services will include all those affected by adoption. However, it continues to make the point:
	Our 30 years experience of supporting adoptive families has shown us that these families need access to the actual provision of support post-placement and post-adoption, not simply an assessment to determine the nature of that support.
	I have made the case as strongly as I can, but I wish to refer brieflyin due deference to the fact that several Labour Members have previously been involved in social workto the British Association of Social Workers, which said:
	Clause 4 needs substantial improvement . . . Social work support in connection with adoption should always be available and it should not initially be conditional on an assessment of the person's needs having already been carried out.[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 21 November 2001; c. 168-352.]
	That goes even further than what we are arguing.
	I hope that the Minister will reconsider the Government's position on clause 4. She rightly referred several times to stakeholders as she opened the debate. If stakeholders mean anything, they should be listened to.

Andrew Lansley: I feel as if I am entering a private party among the members of the Committee. I contributed on Second Reading, but I was not a member of the Committee so I am returning to some of the issues. In this instance, it is a surprise and a disappointment that the issue was not resolved in Committee in the direction that my hon. Friends and other Opposition Members have urged the Government to take.
	I support my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). He rightly referred to the group of amendments and their various aspects. If it were my choice, I would ask the Minister to fix on amendment No. 7 as most deserving of acceptance by the Government. One slight difficulty that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) has advanced is that inevitably there will be limited circumstances in which the Government will legislate that a local authority has a duty not only to provide services but to provide all such services as are required by a person regardlesseffectivelyof the resources available to it. As hon. Members have rightly pointed out, the Exchequer and individual local authorities would receive obvious positive benefits from a successful placement for adoption, but resource constraints may still make provision of the services in question difficult for local authorities. Amendment No. 7 would at least recognise that local authorities would exercise a judgment, having interpreted the need for adoption support services, and then be able to follow that through. Rather than support all the amendments willy-nilly, I express my support for amendment No. 7.
	In Cambridgeshire, the annual report on adoption and permanence for the local social services illustrates my point well. Some 26 children were placed for adoption in 2000-01 and adoption allowances were agreed for 16 children, six of which were in-principle agreements that focused on the possible need for treatment or extra provision in the future. The report drew attention to the high proportion of adopted children who require such financial or other support. It states that it
	is a reflection of the physical and psychological difficulties which many children have and/or of the need to keep siblings together. The 6 in principle allowances reveal the uncertainty which adopters accept when children's previous history or genetic inheritance suggest significant difficulties may develop in future.
	That passage points to the importance of providing a countrywide system of support on which those adoptive families can rely, if we are to sustainas is one of the Bill's principal intentionsthe number of those adopting and prevent the disruption of those adoptions once they have taken place.
	My hon. Friends have referred to the difficulties associated with the current inconsistency in the levels of support that are being provided. I understand that the legislation is intended to deliver greater consistency, but there is a question as to the level at which consistency will be delivered. In Cambridgeshire at the moment, a more stringent means test is being applied to adoption allowances. Cambridgeshire now falls mid-band among local authorities in the level of the means test but, as the report also shows, difficulties have emerged when families who adopted in the past, under a more generous scheme, have sought an allowance for a further adoption. If we are going to introduce a degree of consistency we must expect it to be consistency at a level of provision that is relatively high when compared with the present level; otherwise, there will be substantial disincentive effects.
	I am keen that, in the course of amending clause 4, we should push not only for consistency but for a fairly high level of provision, and a degree of certainty on the part of adoptive parents that that provision will be made available to them if they are assessed as having need of adoption support services.
	When I approached the legislation afresh I was seriously concerned that the Government, having understood what was required, had failed to legislate precisely for that to happen. It was the Government, in their White Paper Adoption: A New Approach, who presaged this legislation. In paragraph 6.27, they said that they would introduce new legislation
	to place a clear duty on local social services authorities to provide post-adoption support, including financial support, planned jointly with local education authorities and the NHS, and any other relevant agencies. This support will be available from the time a placement is made, for as long as it is needed.
	That was not a commitment on the part of Government to introduce legislation providing that local authorities had a duty to decide whether to provide post-adoption support. It was a clear commitment to introduce legislation placing on social services authorities
	a clear duty . . . to provide post-adoption support.
	In the absence of amendment No. 7, the Government will have moved away from the commitment in the White Paper to something watered down. The loophole that will have been created is one through which it would be possible to drive a coach and horses in subsequent years, if local authorities were not properly resourced and the Government did not give them the necessary support. I therefore urge the Government to adopt amendment No. 7.

Jacqui Smith: I agree with parts of the arguments made by Opposition Members. In particular, I agree that at present the provision of adoption support services across the country is patchy and inconsistent, in that in many areas very little support is available for adopters once a child has been placed for adoption. However, we part company over the suggestion that the Bill does not significantly address that issue, because its new provisions on adoption support will tackle that inconsistency.
	The Bill places for the first time a clear duty on local authorities to make and participate in arrangements to provide adoption support services, which will include financial support, delivering on the commitment that we made in the White Paper quoted by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). That new duty is set out in clause 3 and it will ensure that local authorities make available adoption support, including that financial support.
	Clause 4 gives people affected by adoption a new right to request and receive an assessment of their needs for adoption support services from their local authority. That is a new right introduced by the Bill that delivers a key commitment made in the White Paper. The Bill goes even further than the White Paper, in which we made a commitment to give families adopting children a new right to such an assessment. The Bill extends the right to an assessment to all the people listed in clause 3(1), namely children who may be adopted, their parents and guardians, prospective adopters and adopted people, their adoptive parents, birth parents and former guardians.

Julian Brazier: Does the Minister accept that she is talking about assessments, not about the services themselves? As every major stakeholder who has written to us pointed out, clause 4 covers assessments, not services.

Jacqui Smith: I shall deal with the importance of assessments in a moment.
	I was talking about the important duty in clause 3 to provide the service, the important right in clause 4 to receive an assessment, and the extension of that right to people prescribed in regulations made under clause 4(1)(b)namely, those listed in regulations made under clause 3(3)(a). The Government intend that they will include birth and adoptive siblings of adopted people and children who may be adopted.
	The assessment will ensure that adoptive families and others no longer have to fight against the system to get the help and support that they need. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) referred to such fights, and many of us will have heard tell of them at constituency surgeries. They are the legacy of a system that has not properly prioritised the need for local authorities to provide adoption support.

Elfyn Llwyd: The Minister said that clause 3 provides the services required, and she is now helpfully moving on to cover assessment. I ask her to look at clause 4(4), which reads:
	Where, as a result of an assessment, a local authority decide that a person has needs for adoption support services, they must then decide whether to provide any such services to that person.
	I am afraid that that drives a coach and horses through the hon. Lady's argument.

Jacqui Smith: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be relieved to know that I am coming on to that point. The Bill will ensure that public services are properly joined up in the provision of support services on adoption.
	Several hon. Members asked about the nature of the assessment and expressed concerns that it might contribute to delay. I assure them that assessment under clause 4 can cover a full range of assessments from a quick decision with a very rapid response to a full multi-disciplinary assessment where that is required to put together a support package. People who gave evidence in the Special Standing Committee told us that there may be occasions on which it will be important to have such a proper assessment in relation to a child with multiple needs. That was seen not as a barrier to the provision of adoption support services, but as an important gateway to the provision of those services and to ensuring that they were provided in a joined-up way. Of course, adoptive families will not need to wait until an adoption order has been made to request and receive an assessment of their needs for adoption support services. They will be able to request an assessment at any timefor example, when they have been matched with a child or when the child has been placed with them.
	Amendments Nos. 3 and 7Conservative Members have not tried to hide thisseek to restrict the discretion of local authorities to make decisions about the way in which they provide adoption support services. Local authorities must, of course, act reasonably in deciding whether to provide adoption support services following an assessment, but clause 4(4) makes it clear that it is for the local authority to make a decision on whether to provide adoption support services in each individual case.

Sandra Gidley: It occurs to me that there are interesting parallels with education. Since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have frequently been approached by parents who are unhappy with the provision for their children. The county council's attitude seems to be, This will do, rather than, This is what is best for the child. The Minister appears to be describing a similar set-up.

Jacqui Smith: I was actually talking about the need to ensure that local authorities had discretion in this context, as they domy hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) made the pointin the context of many other public services.
	The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) mentioned assessments of older people's needs, but did not go as far as suggesting that the proposals to limit authorities' discretion should also apply to them. I do not know whether that reflects his relative priorities when it comes to needy older people and needy adopted children. The hon. Member for Canterbury was very honest in expressing the view that adopted children's needs should have priority over those of others needing social services assessments, including children in care. He was honest; I am not so sure about the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy.

Julian Brazier: I shall not repeat my reasons for considering these children to be a special case, in both personal and financial terms. I merely say that if we compare this provision with provision for special needs in schools where local authorities have statutory duties, we see that there are fewer children adopted from care in a single year in most local authority areas than there are special needs children in many individual schools.

Jacqui Smith: There is no argument about the importance of adoption support services. That is why, for the first time, we have a Bill that imposes a duty on local authorities to provide such services.

Elfyn Llwyd: As the Minister accused me of dishonesty, let me point out that I thought she was dealing with the Adoption Act 1976, which deals with children. To say that I rank children below or above elderly people is to reach an unjustified conclusion which in fact does little justice to the Minister. May I declare an interest? My own mother is going through an assessment, and I am offended by what the Minister has said.

Jacqui Smith: I am sorry if I offended the hon. Gentleman. I was simply examining the logic of the argument that discretion for making decisions about the provision of adoption support services should be removed, while discretion relating to other services should not. Members must face up to the logic of their arguments in the context of amendments Nos. 3 and 7.

Jonathan Djanogly: The Minister still has not dealt with the basic point. If councils are to have discretion not to provide services, how is it rational to require them to provide an assessment? Why should they have to waste money on an assessment if they are not going to spend money on support afterwards?

Jacqui Smith: As I have said, an assessment is important as a gateway to the provision of services. Given the extra investment and given the duty imposed by the Bill to provide adoption support services, it cannot be said that the vast majority of authorities will not supply massively better services for adopted children and their families than were supplied under the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported until 1997.
	My point is that amendments Nos. 3 and 7 remove local authorities' discretion. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear on Second Reading on 29 October last year, ultimately local authorities provide the adoption service, so they must decide who needs what level of support. I would like to provide two more quotes about the importance of the discretion given to local authorities. Quote No. 1 is:
	We will put our faith in local councillors, the people who are closest to those who will rely on us to deliver better public services.
	Quote No. 2 is:
	community government must mean giving greater freedom to local authority.
	We can deliver that freedom if we are prepared to trust that our councillors will use that freedom responsibly to deliver better services.
	Those were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, who appears to disagree with hon. Members this evening. Discretion for local authorities is important. The effect of the amendments would be to remove that discretion from local authorities.

Tim Loughton: That argument is even more disingenuous than the argument that the Minister used in Special Standing Committee to try to weasel out of the commitments. She is not taking away the requirement on local authorities to provide an assessment, but she is allowing local authorities to place a lower priority on providing support services. That is nonsense. It is a waste of money, and it has absolutely nothing to do with giving greater autonomy to local authorities. If the requirement on providing the service is there, there is a greater chance that the Government will, rightly, provide the resources for the services that we all agree are essential, so let us not have any ridiculous arguments about the autonomy of local government being infringed by what we are proposing.

Jacqui Smith: I appear to have hit the mark. Opposition Members seem to be suggesting that the legislation reduces the likelihood that local authorities will offer adoption support services but it is placing a duty on local authorities to provide those adoption support services in a way that never existed before. It is providing a right for people to be assessed for those services, which will lead to local authorities being able to provide the appropriate packages, but they must have the discretion that exists in relation to every other assessment to determine how those services are provided.

Hilton Dawson: Does not this part of the debate exemplify the way in which the Opposition missed the point over the issue of assessment? Surely, when we are delivering a much improved adoption support service, the process of assessment will follow much more naturally and organically out of the improved relationship and ongoing commitment of local authorities to children who have been adopted.

Jacqui Smith: As always, from his experience, my hon. Friend makes a very important point.
	Opposition Members have raised the issue of resources. We can expect a substantial amount of the extra 66 million for adoption that was announced in the White Paper to be used by local authorities to improve their adoption support services. It will ensure that many more people receive the support that they need. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) is chuntering about support to social services departments. This is 66 million on top of the 20.4 per cent. real-terms increase that has gone to social services authorities, an annual real-terms increase of over 3 per cent. per year. I ask hon. Members, in considering the provision of adoption support services and social services funding. to compare that amount with the 0.1 per cent. real-terms increase in the last five years of the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported,

Tim Loughton: On that point, simply repeating and re-repeating the sum of 66 million under the quality protects programme does not make that figure any more than 66 million over a three-year horizon. If the Minister is serious about it, will she give an undertaking now that when the three years have run out, a serious sum of moneyat least as much as that, and at least as much as is required to provide serious support serviceswill be forthcoming? Simply to repeat the sum of 66 million does not make it go any further.

Jacqui Smith: I was talking not only about the 66 million but about the other significant investment that the Government have put into social servicesmoney that the Conservative party notably failed to pledge to match at the last general election. I will give the hon. Gentleman a commitment: of course we will consider the provisions on adoption support as part of the current spending review process. When the results of that process come through, I shall challenge the hon. Gentleman on whether his party, if in government, would match the investment that we are making in social services.
	I shall now deal with the other amendments. Amendment No. 4, which was debated in Committee, would require local authorities to provide a written explanation of their reasons for not providing adoption support. As I said in Committee, that is not a matter for primary legislation. It may be good practice for local authorities to provide a written explanation of their reasons, but it is more appropriate for that to be covered in guidance to local authorities. In some cases, it may be more appropriate to provide a verbal explanation.
	Amendment No. 5, which we have also debated in Committee, would enable regulations to provide for a review of a local authority's decision not to provide adoption support services. Where a local authority decides not to provide adoption services following an assessment of needs, a complaint can be made to the local authority in the usual way. Adoption is a mainstream social services function. It is therefore appropriate for complaints to be dealt with, following the changes in the Bill, through an improved local authority social services complaints procedure.
	Amendment No. 6 would require the local authority, in addition to carrying out an assessment of needs for adoption support services of the person who has requested the assessment, to carry out an assessment of the needs of connected persons. It does not make clear who those connected persons might be. The examples mentioned by the hon. Member for Canterbury were largely of adoptive parents who already have a right to an assessment under clause 4(1). I do not dispute the importance of the issue, but those people are already covered, so the amendment is unnecessary.
	I shall briefly move on to the Government amendments. Amendment No. 48 relates to clause 9, which provides a general power to make regulations concerning the activities of adoption agencies and adoption support agencies. Regulations may be made for any purpose relating to the exercise of the functions of local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies in relation to adoption and the exercise of functions of adoption support agencies in relation to the provision of adoption support services.
	Subsection (2) provides that this general regulation- making power is not limited by any of the specific powers included in the Bill. Amendment No. 48 is therefore a technical amendment stemming from changes made to the Bill during the Special Standing Committee. It inserts in subsection (2) of clause 9 a reference to clause 52, which was added to the Bill by Government amendment in Committee.
	Hon. Members present in Committee will remember that clause 52 makes it clear that the general regulation-making power in clause 9 may be used to set out the key stages at which adoption agencies are to provide information to prospective adopters, and the information that they are to be obliged to provide. The amendment makes it clear that the exercise of the regulation-making power in clause 9 through clause 52 does not limit the generality of that power.
	Finally, Government amendment No. 37, which the hon. Member for Canterbury asked about, relates to payment of grants to local authorities in respect of their adoption services. Clause 124 amends section 93 of the Local Government Act 2000, which enables the Secretary of State to pay grants to local authorities in respect of welfare services.
	Clause 124 clarifies that grants may be paid under section 93 in connection with welfare services, as well as for their direct provision. That means, for example, that the Secretary of State may pay grants to local authorities to help re-engineer or develop their current adoption services, as well as to help them provide new services.
	These provisions are important because they will be used to meet commitments made in chapter 7 of the White Paper to support local authorities in generating best practice models for managing and improving their adoption services. We intend to pay grants to support local authorities in piloting new ways of working, such as the commissioning of children's services and arrangements for consortiums.
	Amendment No. 37 clarifies the Treasury's powers to give consent to, or withhold consent from, spending Departments for the making of grants to local authorities in England under section 93 of the 2000 Act. It explicitly recognises that the Treasury must approve the proposed terms and conditions of any grant made under that section, and it is able to take those factors into account when deciding whether to consent to the making of a grant. The Treasury rightly takes an interest in everything that happens across government, and it is, of course, appropriate to represent that in the amendment.
	I ask hon. Members to support the Government amendments and reiterate the significant improvements that the Bill makes to the provision of adoption support services. I oppose the Opposition's amendments. They fail to recognise those improvements and would limit the discretion of local authorities to make them.

Julian Brazier: The purpose of the amendments is to assist a small but deserving number of people. We are not convinced by the Government's arguments, but in the spirit of our support for the Bill, and in light of the fact that there is little time to discuss other important measures, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9
	  
	General Power to Regulate Adoption etc. Agencies

Amendment made: No. 48, in page 7, line 42, after 12 insert 52.[Jacqui Smith.]

Clause 10
	  
	Management etc. of Agencies

Jacqui Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 9, line 7, leave out
	'fee of a prescribed amount'
	and insert prescribed fee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government amendments: Nos. 79, 82 and 44 to 47.

Jacqui Smith: Before I begin, I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on what happened to Government amendment No. 37.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That comes a little later in the amendment paper. I will not overlook it.

Jacqui Smith: I have every faith in you. The Bill is close to my heart and I want to ensure that we get through it all.
	The amendments provide greater consistency in the approach to prescribed fees and ensure that the powers in relation to fees are flexible and clear. Amendment No. 47 is relevant for the purposes of all the other amendments in the group. It inserts a new subsection in clause 131, which provides a general interpretation of the terminology used throughout the Bill, and clarifies the meaning of a power to prescribe a fee.
	Where the Bill confers a power to make regulations to prescribe that a fee must or may be charged or paid, or where it confers a power to prescribe such a fee by way of an Order in Councilfor example, in relation to the adoption and children registerthat fee can be any of the fees set out in the amendment. It could be a fixed amount. Alternatively, it could be a fee not exceeding a fixed amount, as made clear in proposed paragraph (a), or a fee that is calculated in accordance with a formula set out in regulations or in an Order in Council, as made clear in proposed paragraph (b). Proposed paragraph (c) provides that the fee may also be a reasonable fee, determined by the person to whom it is payable.
	The remaining amendments ensure that in every case in which the Bill confers a power to prescribe a fee, the term prescribed fee is used consistently. That ensures that any of the fees that I have just described can be prescribed in regulations or in an Order in Council. If the provisions already refer to a prescribed feefor example, in clause 11an amendment is, of course, unnecessary.
	Although I am willing to go into the details of each amendment if hon. Members so wish, I think that that sets out our approach to them all.

Tim Loughton: These amendments will probably be known as the prescribed fee group, because, as the Minister has explained, that is essentially what they deal with. However, I should like to question her on a few issues that arise from them. She said that these amendments had been introduced in the guise of greater consistency, flexibility and clarity. I am somewhat at a loss to understand, for example, why Government amendment No. 43, which simply changes the terminology from
	fee of a prescribed amount
	to prescribed fee, has taken two months to produce after the end of the debates in Committee.
	On a more substantive point, under Government amendment No. 79, the word prescribed will be inserted before the word fee in clause 118(3), which states that the order
	may require an agency giving information which is entered on the register to pay a fee.
	Will the Minister clarifyshe said that she would like to do sothe guidance, which her Department issued to adoption agencies last August, that gave them the strong impression that her Department had promised to fund the adoption register? Why does the question of fees arisewhether they are prescribed fees, charges or whatever she wants to call them?
	On 21 August, it was reported that the Department of Health would pay for the use of the adoption register information. A Department of Health briefing, issued on 26 August last year, stated that it
	will be fully funded by the government and will be free to use by councils and voluntary adoption agencies.
	So will the Minister explain exactly where those fees will be directed and for what purpose, as certain adoption agencies have been given the impression that the register would be funded by the Department? That is something of a mystery, so perhaps she could explain that in the interests of clarity and consistency.
	I have no argument with Government amendments Nos. 44 and 45, which will bring into effect the charging of prescribed fees for using the contact register, as does Government amendment No. 46.
	Government amendment No. 47, which the Minister dealt with first, relates to clause 131. Will she provide further clarification of some of the definitions used in that clause? In particular, will she explain proposed paragraph (c), which states:
	a fee determined by the person to whom it is payable, being a fee of a reasonable amount.?
	How would she define the term reasonable amount? Who will determine the amount? How often will it be redetermined to ensure that it is still a reasonable fee? Will the fee differ for the various agencies in different parts of the country? Will it differ by local authority, given that the Minister is apparently a late convert to giving local authorities greater autonomy?
	Government amendment No. 47 is rather widely drafted, and hon. Members would benefit if the Minister would provide greater definition, but I am particularly keen for her to explain, for the benefit of the agencies involved, why a fee will apparently be charged, given that it was strongly suggested that no fee would be required of voluntary agencies.

Jacqui Smith: I should like to make it clear that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) is right to say that the Government are funding the operation of the adoption and children register. The Government do not intend to charge adoption agencies for the use of the register. However, consequential effects and possible future decisions need to be represented in the legislation. Of course, the existing inter-agency fee system, whereby an adoption agency pays a fee to another adoption agency to cover the costs of recruiting and assessing an adoptive family on its behalf, will continue to operate as it does at the moment, but the Government have promised to keep the inter-agency fee under review. The provisions in clause 118(3) and 119(4) help to provide the flexibility to make changes in the arrangements should that be considered necessary. I reiterate that the Government are indeed funding the register, which is currently operating very successfully, bringing together adopted children and potential adopters.

Tim Loughton: We need to get this absolutely clear. I think that the Minister is now suggesting that there will not be charges but that the Government are establishing the potential for their introduction. Will she cast her mind forward, as we need clarity for the long term? In what circumstances might her Department institute charging for operating the register, so that it will not be wholly Government funded?

Jacqui Smith: I certainly did not say that we were considering imposing charges. I said that a review of the inter-agency fee arrangements, whereby authorities pay each other for the recruitment of adopters, could involve a routing of the fee via the adoption register. What is important is that, in drafting legislation that will exist for some time, we provide opportunities for the consideration of such issues.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the definition in proposed paragraph (c) of amendment No. 47that the fee may also be reasonable if it is determined by the person to whom it is payable. We discussed the charging of reasonable fees at some length in Committee, such as in the context of inter-country adoption, where it would perhaps most appropriately fit. The Government intend to make regulations under clause 11(2) to enable local authorities to continue to charge prospective inter-country adopters a fee to cover reasonably incurred expenses.
	In this context, a reasonable fee would of course bear in mind the fact that each adoption agency has slightly different costs and should be able to reflect those costs in the fee charged. Agencies should not, as was made clear in Committee, be able to recover more money than they expend; they should be able to recover only their costs. What would be a reasonable fee for inter-country work might vary from adoption agency to adoption agency, and it would therefore clearly be inappropriate for a fixed amount to be prescribed. The proposed subsection enables the flexibility on reasonable fees that we discussed at some length in Committee.
	I hope that, with those reassurances, hon. Members will feel able to support the amendments.
	Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12
	  
	Independent review of determinations

Julian Brazier: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 9, line 31, leave out subsection (1) and insert
	'(1) Regulations under section 9 may establish a procedure under which any person in respect of whom a determination has been made by an adoption agency may apply to an organisation or panel, independent of any local authority or voluntary adoption agency but approved by the appropriate Minister for a review of that determination.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 23, in clause 14, page 10, line 40, leave out subsection (1) and insert
	'(1) If as a result of an independent review any local authority is found to have failed, without reasonable cause, to comply with any of the duties imposed on them by virtue of this Act, the appropriate Minister may make an order declaring that authority to be in default in respect of that duty.'.

Julian Brazier: As the clause stands, most of the important detail is left to regulations. For those of us who have been pressing for many years for an independent appeals process for adoption-related matters, the clause is welcome. None the less, it is disappointing that the Minister said in Committee on 18 December at column 676 that regulations are likely to focus on only two mattersat least initially. They are, first, prospective adopters' suitability for the new national list, and secondly, the provision of information by adoption agencies.

Jonathan Djanogly: The Minister may wish to clarify this, but I think that, following the Government's changes on access to information, the regulations will now focus on only one area.

Julian Brazier: My understanding is that the review process will still focus on the two matters. Crucially, that does not seem to apply to other parts of the adoption process. In particular, it is not likely to apply to decisions on individual matchings. That is a come-down from the Secretary of State's apparent pledge on Second Reading, when he said:
	It is right that we build in independent review throughout the system
	his words
	whether of the provision of information to adopted children about their birth families, or of decisions to place a child with a particular family
	the Secretary of State's very words
	They are difficult issues.[Official Report, 29 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 659.]
	Explaining the need to limit the review process, the Minister in Committee stressed issues of resourcing. She claimed that the review process inevitably draws on the same over-tapped pool of professionals and social workers, who are in short supply and must come off their current tasks to review past ones. That is a weak argument. There is a strong case for lay involvement in the review process. None the less, there is a large range of other circumstances in which things can go badly wrong in the adoption process, and there is no redress for prospective adopters, other interested parties or the child.
	Given the short time available, I shall not restate points made in Committee about how expensive judicial review is or the fact that the ombudsman is powerless and that there is little point in appealing to the local authority.
	Our amendment No. 22 seeks, first, to extend the scope of reviews from qualifying determinations to all determinations. That does not automatically make all determinations subject to review. It merely allows the Secretary of State to set out such wider categories as he sees fit. Secondly, the amendment seeks to set up an independent framework for the hearing of such appeals. Amendment No. 23 is largely consequential. Under amendment No. 22, the Minister will be able to allow an independent appeal process across the entire range of activities, so it seems reasonable to limit the Minister's powers to the outcome of such appeals.

Hilton Dawson: By moving the amendments, is not the hon. Gentleman in danger of putting the interests of adults before those of children? Does he not run the risk that placement decisions and the efficient and proper implementation of placements will be subject to the activities of vexatious litigants?

Julian Brazier: In Committee the hon. Gentleman discussed the matter at length. To summarise my argument, there are all sorts of ways of putting filters into the process. Perhaps the best answer to his intervention is to go straight on to some examples.
	The current appeals procedure would not cover approved adopters who are denied a match with the child whom they wish to adopt, even if there is no other applicant for the child and has not been one for a long period. Surely there could be no clearer example of the vital interests of the child. As another example, if a care plan is not being heeded or a bad decision has been made, how will the child or the child's representativeperhaps a foster carer or an independent visitorget justice?
	Further examples include a child being moved on unwillingly to yet another set of foster carers, foster carers being refused permission to adopt a child whom they have fostered for yearsthe hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) will know that the Government- commissioned research produced in Cardiff two years ago showed that some local authorities never allowed foster parents to adoptand approved couples who are again and again refused matchings. I could go on. I shall give two other examples, before returning to a more detailed case. What will happen when information has been retained on a child's background? All those who served on the Committee heard strong testimony about the importance of getting that information released. There is currently no recourse if the local authority refuses to give the parents information about the child's history, which is so vital if the child has been abused. Above all, what recourse will there be for whistleblowers in the social services system? Such people are brave professionals who often write off their entire careers by putting principle before their own interest for the sake of children.
	It might be helpful if I describe in detail an actual example at the end of that list of hypotheticals. Mr. and Mrs. J, who live in central London, would have liked to appeal on several grounds. No avenue of appeal was available to them, and the Bill, as currently worded, would not provide one. They said to the Adoption Forum:
	We live in a very mixed area, racially speaking. Our circle of friends and acquaintances is also mixed. We adopted a 7-year-old white English boy from our local authority in 1996 and, with the usual ups and downs, it is a stable and happy relationship for my husband, me and our boy. In 1999 we applied to adopt his mixed-race . . . half-sister, then 13. We had grown very fond of her after regular contact ordered by our local authority and she had been moved several times in foster care and expressed a desire with live with us. Our local authority refused the placement on the grounds that she was of mixed race and we were not. We did our utmost to try to persuade them but nothing was achieved. We still abide by the contact order. The girl is still in foster care (she has been in several placements) which we all value. But we believe the girl, our relationship with the girl and, inevitably, with our son, too, have been ill-served by the decision not to allow the placement.
	Surely such a case is worth a review? However, as the clause is worded, without amendment No. 22, it would not get oneunless the Minister's thinking changes.
	The clause also establishes an appeal structure. There is a concern that, under the clause as currently worded, the appeal might not be truly independent. For example, it might be considered by people from the local authority involved, and the adoption agency might be made to pay for it. In the case of voluntary agencies, that could be disastrous and would be a burden on local authorities, too.
	The Government have a mass of tribunals stretching across many different Departments, covering everything from employment to parking fines. Surely our most vulnerable childrenthose in the care system whom we in Parliament have failed in all too many casesare worth an independent appeal heard by a properly constituted independent panel.

Jonathan Djanogly: I rise to support amendments Nos. 22 and 23, which relate to the new procedures to be put in place for what the Bill refers to as an independent review of determinations. As it turns out, that title is rather ambitious. Two issues seem to be involved in reviewing what counts as a qualifying determination, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) suggested.
	My hon. Friend also mentioned that on Second Reading the Secretary of State said:
	It is right that we build in independent review throughout the system.[Official Report, 29 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 659.]
	I draw attention to the word throughout. That does not describe what has happened, as things have turned out.
	We know little about the purpose of the proposed review panels. We do not know who will sit on them, how and when they will be convened, what their procedures will be, or the time limits for convening them. Indeed, in Committee, the Government did not even know when the system would be introduced.
	We need to consider why review panels are important. Gradually over the past 30 years, people have lost confidence in the adoption system. Many potential adopters feel that they have received unfair treatment at the hands of agencies and social workers, that their wishes have been sidelined, that delays in the system are unacceptable, or that a decision made in the adoption process was wrong. Currently, complaints go through councils, where one can go through three stages of complaint procedure. Of course, one is taking one's complaint to the very same council that one has the complaint against, which is hardly an independent process. Alternatively, in some cases, one may be able to go to judicial review, but that is a very expensive process, open only to a very few.
	The main thrust behind the Bill is to emphasise the importance of the child who, under clause 1, is to receive paramount status. That being the case, it becomes more important that other parties to the adoption process should receive an independent right to redress. I would certainly accept that a properly convened, easy-access, low-cost and informal panel system would work well. That would allow for any person, including natural parents and adoptive parents, to apply in relation to any adoption agency determination. That is proposed by the amendment, and I fully support it.
	It is important to appreciate that, as things stand, even if the panels are formed, they will be available only to one partythe prospective adoptive parentsand then only in relation to their being refused permission to adopt, and then only to those who make it to the formal stage of the adoption process. However, only 10 per cent. of those who apply get to the formal stage of the adoption process in the first place, which means that the measure would apply to 4 per cent. of prospective adoptive parents.
	This is being called an independent review system but I would hardly call it a full and comprehensive system. It is turning out to be little more than a sham. It does nothing to demand a review of a child who is moved between foster carers, or to allow for a review of the suitability of a child for adoption with particular prospective parents. It gives no recourse to a review of delays in the process, or to the giving of parental consent to adoption, or to assessing whether the child's views have been taken into account in the process. There is no provision for a review of the parents' assessment for supportif they are to get any at allor issues relating to the content of or access to the three adoption registers; or, indeed, inter-country adoptions.
	For all those reasons, I support the amendments.

Jacqui Smith: Hon. Members have expressed concerns about various different stages of the adoption process, and their conclusion has been that the independent review process should be extended to all those stages. I hope to demonstrate not that I do not believe that those are justifiable concerns, but that, given the other structures that are in place, I do not believe that an extension of the independent review process would be the most appropriate way of dealing with those concerns.
	As the White Paper made clear, the intended purpose of the independent review mechanism is to build confidence in the adopter assessment process, to address concerns that there was bias or that a decision was not soundly based andto reassure the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier)to provide a means for an independent review of some of the decisions made on the access to information provisions introduced by the Government. I reassure him that that remains a purpose of the independent review. It was never intended, as appears to be the intention behind the amendments, as a means of micro-managing the day-to-day business of adoption agencies.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to foster carers who, for four years, have been blocked from adopting. Under clause 41(4), they can apply, regardless of the local authority's views, if they have had care of the child for one year. Adoption standard B5 emphasises that assessment for foster carers should be speedier; four months, rather than eight.
	The hon. Gentleman again raised his concern about the use of the independent review mechanism with regard to adoption agency determinations about matches between children and approved adopters. I undertook to consider whether, as we consulted on the use of the independent review mechanism, that might be an appropriate determination to be considered. The consultation is due to take place in the autumn. We have also undertaken initially to implement the independent review mechanism in 2003 and, as I said, to consult on the extension that he referred to in Committee.
	I hope that I can reassure hon. Members by outlining some of the regulatory and quality assurance mechanisms. Some are enshrined in the Bill and many involve independent scrutiny, which I hope will overcome some of the concerns that have been mentioned.
	As a starting point, the Bill places every agency under a statutory obligation to make the child's welfare the paramount consideration in any decision relating to the adoption of a child. All adoption agencies will be regulated by the independent National Care Standards Commission. Voluntary agencies will have to be registered to perform their functions legally. The NCSC will set national minimum standards for all agencies covering the facilities, staff, qualifications, skills and procedures that should be in place for the organisation properly to perform the functions of an adoption agency. All voluntary adoption agencies and local authorities will be subject to regular independent inspection by the commission against those standards.
	Aside from the overall regulatory structure, as we touched on earlier, local authorities have to set up complaints procedures under the Children Act 1989 in respect of children and the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 in respect of adults. Both procedures require an independent person to be appointed to supervise the conduct of the complaints process, which we are reforming and improving.
	In relation to the hon. Gentleman's concerns about young people
	It being Two hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Orders [29 October, 23 January and this day] put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
	Amendment negatived.
	Mr. Speaker then put the remaining Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 14
	  
	Default power of an appropriate Minister

Amendment made: No. 34, in page 11, line 1, after Act insert
	'or of section 1 or 2(4) of the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999'.[Jacqui Smith.]

New Clause 8
	  
	Use of an organisation as agency for payments

'(1) An Order under section 116 may authorise an organisation with which an arrangement is made under section 117 to act as agent for the payment or receipt of sums payable by adoption agencies to other adoption agencies and may require adoption agencies to pay or receive such sums through the organisation.
	(2) The organisation is to perform the functions exercisable by virtue of this section in accordance with any directions given by the Secretary of State; and the directions may be of general application (or general application in any part of Great Britain) or be special directions.
	(3) An exercise of the Secretary of State's power to give directions under subsection (2) requires the agreement of the Scottish Ministers (if any payment agency provision applies to Scotland) and of the Assembly (if any payment agency provision applies to Wales)'.[Mr. Kemp.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 9
	  
	Territorial application

'(1) In this group of sections, adoption agency means
	(a) a local authority in England,
	(b) a registered adoption society, where the registration authority is the National Care Standards Commission.
	(2) An Order under section 116 may provide for any requirements imposed on adoption agencies in respect of the register to apply
	(a) to Scottish local authorities and to voluntary organisations providing a registered adoption service,
	(b) to local authorities in Wales and to registered adoption societies, where the registration authority is the Assembly,
	and, in relation to the register, references to adoption agencies in this group of sections include any authorities or societies mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) to which an Order under that section applies those requirements.
	(3) For the purposes of this group of sections, references to the register applying to Scotland or Wales are to those requirements applying as mentioned in paragraph (a) or, as the case may be, (b) of subsection (2).
	(4) An Order under section 116 may apply any provision made by virtue of section [Use of an organisation as agency for payments]
	(a) to Scottish local authorities and to voluntary organisations providing a registered adoption service,
	(b) to local authorities in Wales and to registered adoption societies, where the registration authority is the Assembly.
	(5) For the purposes of this group of sections, references to any payment agency provision applying to Scotland or Wales are to provision made by virtue of section [Use of an organisation as agency for payments] applying as mentioned in paragraph (a) or, as the case may be, (b) of subsection (4)'.[Mr. Kemp.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 116
	  
	Adoption and Children Act Register

Amendments made: No. 68, in page 66, line 13, leave out from beginning to establish and insert
	'Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for the Secretary of State to'.
	No. 69, in page 66, line 20, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert
	'(2A) For the purpose of giving assistance in finding persons with whom children may be placed for purposes other than adoption, an Order under this section may
	(a) provide for the register to contain information about such persons and the children who may be placed with them, and
	(b) apply any of the other provisions of this group of sections (that is, this section, sections 117 to 120, section [Use of an organisation as agency for payments] and section [Territorial application]) with or without modifications'.
	No. 70, in page 66, line 31, leave out Regulations and insert
	'An Order under this section'.
	No. 71, in page 66, line 33, leave out subsection (6).[Mr. Kemp.]

Clause 117
	  
	Use of an organisation to establish etc. the register

Amendments made: No. 72, in page 66, line 38, leave out with the Assembly's agreement.
	No. 73, in page 66, line 39, leave out his function and insert
	'any function of his under an Order under section 116'.
	No. 74, in page 67, line 3, leave out subsection (3).
	No. 75, in page 67, line 9, leave out from any to end of line 14 and insert
	'directions given by the Secretary of State and the directions may be of general application (or general application in any part of Great Britain) or be special directions.
	( ) An exercise of the Secretary of State's powers under subsection (1) or (4) requires the agreement of the Scottish Ministers (if the register applies to Scotland) and of the Assembly (if the register applies to Wales).
	( ) References in this group of sections to the registration organisation are to any organisation for the time being performing functions in respect of the register by virtue of arrangements under this section'.[Mr. Kemp.]

Clause 118
	  
	Supply of information for the register

Amendments made: No. 76, in page 67, line 16, leave out Regulations and insert
	'An Order under section 116'.
	No. 77, in page 67, line 19, leave out regulations and insert the Order.
	No. 78, in page 67, line 21, leave out Regulations and insert
	'An Order under section 116'.
	No. 79, in page 67, line 22, leave out from a to second to and insert prescribed fee.[Mr. Kemp.]

Clause 119
	  
	Disclosure of information

Amendments made: No. 80, in page 67, line 35, leave out from disclosed to or in line 42 and insert
	'under subsection (2) or (3).
	(2) Prescribed information entered in the register may be disclosed by the Secretary of State or the registration organisation
	(a) where an adoption agency is acting on behalf of a child who is suitable for adoption, to the agency to assist in finding prospective adopters with whom it would be appropriate for the child to be placed,
	(b) where an adoption agency is acting on behalf of prospective adopters who are suitable to adopt a child, to the agency to assist in finding a child appropriate for adoption by them.
	(3) Prescribed information entered in the register, or compiled from information entered in the register, may be disclosed by the Secretary of State or the registration organisation to any prescribed person for use for statistical or research purposes, or for other prescribed purposes.
	(3A) An Order under section 116 may prescribe the steps to be taken by adoption agencies in respect of information received by them by virtue of subsection (2).
	(3B) Subsection (1) does not apply
	(a) to a disclosure of information with the authority of the Secretary of State, or
	(b) to a disclosure by the registration authority of prescribed information to the Scottish Ministers (if the register applies to Scotland) or the Assembly (if the register applies to Wales).
	(3C) Information disclosed to any person under subsection (2)'.
	No. 81, in page 68, line 1, leave out Regulations and insert
	'An Order under section 116'.
	No. 82, in page 68, line 1, leave out from a to first to in line 2 and insert prescribed fee.
	No. 83, in page 68, line 5, leave out section 116(2) and insert subsection (2).
	No. 84, in page 68, line 6, leave out section 116(3) and insert subsection (3).[Mr. Kemp.]

Clause 120
	  
	Supplementary

Amendments made: No. 85, in page 68, line 13, leave out from In to end of line and insert this group of sections
	( ) organisation includes a public body and a private or voluntary organisation'.
	No. 86, in page 68, line 14, leave out regulations and insert
	'an Order under section 116'.
	No. 87, in page 68, line 16, leave out paragraph (c) and insert
	'(c) Scottish local authority means a local authority within the meaning of the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001,
	(d) voluntary organisation providing a registered adoption service has the same meaning as in section 131(2A).'.
	No. 88, in page 68, line 18, leave out sections 116 to 119 and insert this group of sections.
	No. 89, in page 68, line 24, leave out sections 116 to 119 and insert this group of sections.
	No. 90, in page 68, line 26, leave out subsection (4) and insert
	'(4) No recommendation to make an Order under section 116 is to be made to Her Majesty in Council unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
	(5) If any provision made by an Order under section 116 would, if it were included in an Act of the Scottish Parliament, be within the legislative competence of that Parliament, no recommendation to make the Order is to be made to Her Majesty in Council unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Parliament.
	(6) No recommendation to make an Order under section 116 containing any provision in respect of the register is to be made to Her Majesty in Council if the register applies to Wales or the Order would provide for the register to apply to Wales, unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Assembly.
	(7) No recommendation to make an Order under section 116 containing any provision by virtue of section [Use of an organisation as agency for payments] is to be made to Her Majesty in Council if any payment agency provision applies to Wales or the Order would provide for any payment agency provision to apply to Wales, unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Assembly'.[Mr. Kemp.]

Clause 124
	  
	Payment of grants in connection with welfare services

Amendment made: No. 37, in page 70, line 41, at end insert
	'(4) After subsection (6) there is inserted
	(6A) Before making any determination under subsection (3) or (5) the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of the Treasury.'[Mr. Kemp.]
	It being more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings, further consideration stood adjourned.
	Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.

PETITIONS
	  
	Sandringham School

Kerry Pollard: I bring a petition from several thousand of my constituents in St. Albans who object to the transfer of Sandringham school out of St. Albans into the Harpenden educational area. The petition states:
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to take steps to ensure that Sandringham school remains as a St. Albans school.
	To lie upon the Table.

Rugby League

David Hinchliffe: I wish to present a petition signed by more than 30,000 rugby league supporters, which draws attention to their concerns over inaccurate and ill-informed commentary on their sport in some sections of the media.
	The petition requests:
	that the House of Commons shall recognise the support which Rugby League has throughout the United Kingdom; acknowledge its unique contribution to the sporting life of the nation; and call upon the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to make every effort to promote fair and constructive media coverage of Rugby League.
	To lie upon the Table.

NHS CONSULTANTS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Kemp.]

Ian Lucas: National health service consultants are the engine that drives the hospital sector. In the deluge of reforms that has swept through the NHS in the past 20 years, it is remarkable that the contract that governs the way in which NHS consultants work has remained largely unchanged since 1948. Therefore, I very much welcome the proposals that the Government published in February 2001 for a new approach to the consultant contract.
	As a former non-executive director of an NHS trust, I am well aware of the prodigious commitment of some NHS consultants to their patients. They work long hours above and beyond the call of duty to treat patients who are in pain and need the professional skills that they offer. But I am also aware that there are consultants who are employed in the NHS, especially some of those who work under part-time contracts, who spend a great deal of their time working outside the NHS in the private sector.
	Danger of abuse in the health service is always at the point where private commercialism impinges on the service. Abuse occurs when an attempt is made to marry the incompatible principles of private acquisitiveness with a public service. It was Aneurin Bevan who identified that problem in In Place of Fear more than 50 years ago. Half a century later, that problem affects the care of NHS patients.
	At the outset, it is worth noting the present pay levels of NHS consultants. Under the present contract, the basic pay scale is between 50,000 and 66,000 per annum, although discretionary points can lead to salaries in excess of 80,000 being paid. Over and above that income, NHS consultants can earn very large sums from the private sector. I commend the excellent report of the Health Committee on consultants' contracts in the previous Parliament, which revealed that from 1999, the estimated annual average private earnings of NHS consultants in plastic surgery exceeded 75,000 and in orthopaedics were almost 59,000.
	There is some evidence to show that that figure is likely to have substantially increased in recent years. The pressure to reduce waiting lists means that more public money is being used to employ NHS consultants outside the NHS and some consultants are exploiting their monopoly position to increase their income.
	This week, the Financial Times reported one NHS trust chairman as saying:
	Consultants have suddenly realised they are in short supply and that they have market power. Last year we settled at a price of around 600 a session . . . We are now negotiating for what we will pay them after April and their opening offer to us is 1,500.
	On 17 March, The Sunday Times reported that one David Taggart, a consultant surgeon at the Oxford John Radcliffe hospital, was paid 34,000 over and above his salary for operating on his own patients to reduce waiting lists.
	One of the commonest complaints in my constituency surgeries is from those who have been given a waiting list appointment, but who are then made aware that if they were treated in the private sector they could secure the same treatment, often from the same doctor, almost immediately. That gives consultants a perverse incentive to keep waiting lists long and to encourage trusts to use additional public funding to buy health care from them in the private sector. That boosts their private income and means that long waiting lists give financial benefits to those consultants.
	To my surprise as a trust board member, I learned that boards have no idea how much the consultants they employ actually earn from the private medical sector. Even more disturbing is the fact that NHS trusts have no means of knowing how many hours consultants are working in the private sector. In the era of clinical governance, that is simply intolerable. I was the chairman of a clinical governance committee with a responsibility for assessing the quality of work carried out by consultants. How can that be done when the committee has no means of knowing how many hours a week its employees, who are often carrying out hugely complex surgery, are working?
	It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Kemp.]

Ian Lucas: Until there is full disclosure by NHS consultants of the work that they do in the private sector, there will be doubt that they are fully committed to NHS work and that they are not working excessive hours in the pursuit of profit. Openness is in the best interests of doctors, the NHS and patients.
	I know that the Government's proposals for a new NHS contract were greeted with howls of outrage from the British Medical Association. I admit that this is a difficult issue, but I urge the Government to stand firm on the principles laid out in their proposal for a new approach to the consultants contract in February 2001.
	As someone who was part of a management team at an NHS trust hospital, I do not believe that the present contractual arrangements allow NHS managers to manage consultants, who are some of their most important employees. Floating sessions allow consultants maximum freedom to work as they wish and give managers minimum power to ensure that consultants work within the aims of the NHS trust by which they are employed. In a letter to The Daily Telegraph published on 28 February, Mr. John Hale, who worked in the NHS for 15 years, wrote:
	one of the biggest drains on the service was consultants with part-time contracts. They spent fewer than their contracted hours working for the NHS, concentrating on their private practices. As a consequence of their commercial activities, many consultants are late arriving at their out-patient clinics or operating sessions and frequently do not attend at all.
	Consultants operate on the basis of good will, not contractual obligations. In the modern NHS, in which strategic planning is of vital importance, that cannot be allowed to continue.
	I welcome the fact that the BMA agrees that greater transparency should be the basis of the new contract. Consultants should know what is expected of them, managers should know what to expect from consultants, and patients should know that the generous pay levels thought to form part of the new proposed contract will fund real commitment to the NHS on the part of all consultants.
	There is one further area of great concern. In February 2001, the Government proposed that new consultants should, for the first seven years of their contract, be prevented from engaging in similar work outside the NHS. It takes substantial public investment to train consultants; the private sector does not fund the training. It is right, in principle, that as the public sector funds the training, the public sector should benefit. However, it is not just a matter of principle. Those who manage the NHS tell me that such a change would dramatically increase the NHS work carried out by new consultants, which would help reduce waiting lists. The Government must therefore stand firm.
	I suspect that the negotiations on the NHS consultants contract may come to a head soon. The key to successful reform of the hospital sector lies in a new NHS consultants' contract that harnesses the skills of consultants for the NHS. It has taken more than 50 years for this opportunity to come. Having created the chance for reform, the Government must not duck the issues.

Hazel Blears: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) on securing this debate on the important issue of NHS consultants' contract. I also acknowledge his expertise and experience in these matters, and his encouragement to the Government to stand firm in the negotiations that are currently going on.
	My hon. Friend will know that the United Kingdom Health Departmentswe are negotiating the contract on a UK basis; it is not just a matter for Englandare currently working with the central consultants and specialists committee of the British Medical Association on the new contract. I hope he will understand that, while the negotiations are under way, I cannot discuss the details of what is under discussion. As he said, the negotiations are complex and difficult, but it may be helpful if I set out why we are engaged in trying to reform the consultants contract and describe the benefits that we are hoping to achieve for consultants and staff from the new arrangements.
	We recognise the dedication and commitment of doctors throughout the NHS. We know that consultants do an excellent job for the NHS which patients very much appreciate. Consultants often work under real pressure and sometimes flat out to provide the best possible care for their patients. We want the new contract to provide a better framework within which we can acknowledge this commitment to the NHS and to the patients under their care.
	We have delivered the largest-ever sustained increase in funding for the NHS, but resources alone will not modernise and improve the service. We need to make the whole system work better and be prepared to do things differently. We are beginning to see much of that change happening throughout the NHS, and our challenge is to make the change universal and to get good practice adopted everywhere. We need consultants to be at the forefront of this modernisation, leading clinical change and redesigning clinical services around the patient, so that we no longer have a top-down service. We want to put patients at the centre and to ensure that all the services meet their needs.
	We must also recognise that consultants sometimes feel they are struggling against the system. They cannot always get access to theatre or out-patient slots and sometimes the equipment that they want is already being used. Too often consultants feel that they do not get rewards for their service6 per cent. of all women consultants hold a distinction award compared with 5 per cent. for all ethnic minority consultants and 17 per cent. for all white male consultants. Clearly those issues need to be addressed.
	We need to tackle the issue of private practice. We all know that the majority of consultants work extremely hard for the NHS, working long hours and showing outstanding commitment. We need to tackle head on any suggestion that there could be conflicts of interest between NHS work and private work by NHS consultants. The time has come to be transparent, open and straight with people about such issues. The place to do that is in the contract negotiations.
	Many factors affect waiting lists and waiting times in the NHS, and not all of them relate to the availability of individual consultants, but they have a key role to play in making sure that waiting lists and waiting times go down. We need to be to able to reassure patients that there is no conflict between consultants' work in the private sector and their work in the NHS.
	We want to develop a contract that sets out clearly and unambiguously what is expected of consultants, that allows the NHS to make the most effective use of their time and that properly rewards consultants for their commitment to and performance in the NHS. That involves changing the way the system works to make it better for patients and consultants. We hope to do that through partnership in the negotiations that are currently taking place.
	The NHS plan set out our plans to overhaul the contract and to work with doctors' representatives to try to achieve a mutually agreeable conclusion to the negotiations. We set out our proposals to develop the system of medical care in hospitals so that it becomes a more consultant-delivered service, with much more direct patient care being delivered by consultants. The NHS plan also set out proposals for an unprecedented increase in consultant numbersequivalent to an increase of more than 30 per cent. since 1999. The Government have shown a real commitment to increase the number of consultants in the NHS so that patients can be seen more quickly and more effectively by very senior members of staff who can provide excellent quality care.
	To make the best use of the increased number of consultants, we must have a clear contract that sets out the commitment of consultants to the NHS. The Government published detailed proposals on the consultants' contract in February 2001, building on the commitments set out in the NHS plan. These proposals, and the British Medical Association's proposals, form the basis of the negotiations currently taking place.
	Our specific aims are to develop a system that gives better rewards to those who do most for the NHS, that gives proper recognition for the intensity of different working patterns, that makes better use of consultant time and effort, and that offers incentives and rewards to those who make a long-term commitment to the NHS.
	The key elements of our proposals are a higher starting salary of 60,000, compared with the current salary of 51,000; additional pay thresholds that will take the basic salary up to 80,000, depending on satisfactory performance; immediate access to a new and much more transparent awards schemereplacing the current system of distinction awards and discretionary pointsthat will offer awards of up to 65,000 in addition to the basic salary; a new concept of phased careers, involving an initial phase of maximum patient contact and high-intensity working when people are at the beginning of their careers and have lots of energy, drive and enthusiasm; the scope to reduce work load intensity for more experienced consultants who might want to do other work or change their working patterns; and a new system of mandatory job planning, with annual job plan reviews. My hon. Friend made the important point that often NHS managers do not have available full information on what consultants are doing, and where, when and for whom they are doing it. A job planning system will make the process much more transparent.
	A crucial part of the plan is an initial period of perhaps seven years during which newly appointed consultants would be restricted to working exclusively in the NHS. Following that initial period, there will be a choice of contractual arrangements, based on time and service commitments to the NHS. For NHS employers, such a contract will provide greater direct management of how a consultant's time is organised, and enable working together to design job plans. All activities will be programmed into that job plan, and an increased proportion of programmed consultant time will be devoted to direct clinical care. A clear restriction will be imposed on carrying out work for other organisations in NHS time, and the opportunity will exist to offer greater rewards for NHS service and good performance.
	For consultants, the proposals offer a significant increase in pay and rewards, and better planning of their time. We recognise consultants' concerns about inability to plan work loadsparticularly emergency work loadsinto their job patterns. Indeed, the profession itself wants clarity in terms of its commitments. As I said, we want to ensure proper rewards and incentives in the system.
	For new consultants, our proposals would provide 15 per cent. higher lifetime earnings than the current arrangements. After 12 years, the majority of existing consultants would be between 15 and 20 per cent. better off than under the current arrangements. The proposals offer a real incentive for maximising commitment to the national health service. For patients, better planning of consultant time will allow better use of staff, equipment and facilities, greater opportunity to plan the working day and shorter waiting times.
	An intensive programme of negotiations is under way. They deal with job planning, organisation and timetabling of the working week, core working hours, the possibility of extended patient services, on-call and emergency work, starting salary, consultants' progression up the pay hierarchy, disciplinary arrangements and links to private practice.
	I am pleased to say that good progress has been made, but some difficult issues still need to be resolved. We need to ensure that trusts and consultants work together to deliver the new contract and benefits for patients. Implementation has to be led by a strong programme of support and guidance, and we are working with the BMA to ensure that implementation can proceed smoothly, so that there are no disruptions to patients or staff.
	This is the first fundamental overhaul of the consultants' contract since 1948, and we should not underestimate the work to be done. It is crucial that we get it right. We published our initial proposals in February 2001, and we have been working with the BMA since then to develop detailed proposals. Some tricky issues are involved, but we remain committed to seeing the negotiations through and improving the system.
	Consultants throughout the NHS work very hard, and I understand that only 15 per cent. are on part-time contracts. Some choose such contracts for domestic reasons, and in order to have flexibility in their careers. We recognise that the vast majority of consultants work extremely hard for the NHS.
	The current contract, largely unchanged for more than 50 years, is outdated. We are developing a new contract that will recognise consultants' contribution and also commitment to the NHS. We want to have a system in the future that is designed around the needs of patients, that recognises the skills that consultants bring to the service and that makes patients the driving force. That is not an easy task.
	We are prepared to make a substantial investment in the right contract, and I have outlined the increases in pay and rewards that will be on offer for those who want to devote their time to working for the NHS. I am confident that we will have a package that will be seen as a major improvement on the current system and that will deliver the significant benefits we want to see for patients in the NHS. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham raised this important subject this evening and I welcome his support for the Government's proposals in the negotiations.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Ten o'clock.